CRM-M-22956- 240 ( 240 ( 240 ( 240 (2222nd nd nd nd case) case) case) case) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA Roshan Lal State of Haryana CORAM: CORAM: CORAM: CORAM: Present: Present: Present: Present:- SUMEET GOEL SUMEET GOEL SUMEET GOEL SUMEET GOEL 1. Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 the petitioner in case bearing FIR No offences punishable under Section Psychotropic Substances City Fatehabad, District Fatehabad. 2. an accused of being involved in an FIR pertaining strips (containing 10 tablets each i.e., total 990 tablets, weighing total 475 grams) of Tramadol namely, Rohit Kumar in this case. 3. in custody since -2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA Date of decision: Date of decision: Date of decision: Date of decision: versus Haryana HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL Mr. Kuldeep Singh Siwach, Advocate Mr. Deepak Kumar Grewal, DAG Haryana. ***** ***** ***** ***** SUMEET GOEL SUMEET GOEL SUMEET GOEL SUMEET GOEL, J. (ORAL) , J. (ORAL) , J. (ORAL) , J. (ORAL) Present petition has been filed under Section Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short ‘BNSS the petitioner in case bearing FIR No.386 dated ences punishable under Sections 22-C, 27 Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short ‘NDPS Act’) City Fatehabad, District Fatehabad. The gravamen of the allegations against the petitioner is that he is an accused of being involved in an FIR pertaining strips (containing 10 tablets each i.e., total 990 tablets, weighing total 475 grams) of Tramadol allegedly recovered from the co Rohit Kumar, and said Rohit Kumar Learned counsel for the petitioner has iterated that the petitioner is in custody since 18.11.2024. Learned counsel 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH AT CHANDIGARH AT CHANDIGARH AT CHANDIGARH CRM CRM CRM CRM----M M M M----22956 22956 22956 22956----2025 2025 2025 2025 Date of decision: Date of decision: Date of decision: Date of decision: August 12 August 12 August 12 August 12,,,, 2025 2025 2025 2025 ….Petitioner ….Respondent HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Deepak Kumar Grewal, DAG Haryana. Present petition has been filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya BNSS’) for grant of regular bail to dated 22.08.2024, registered for the C, 27-A of the Narcotic Drugs and (for short ‘NDPS Act’), at Police Station The gravamen of the allegations against the petitioner is that he is an accused of being involved in an FIR pertaining to NDPS Act involving 99 strips (containing 10 tablets each i.e., total 990 tablets, weighing total 475 from the co-accused of the petitioner, disclosed name of the petitioner Learned counsel for the petitioner has iterated that the petitioner is . Learned counsel has further argued that the 1 2025 2025 2025 2025 2025 2025 2025 2025 Petitioner ….Respondent Bharatiya for grant of regular bail to registered for the Narcotic Drugs and at Police Station The gravamen of the allegations against the petitioner is that he is 99 strips (containing 10 tablets each i.e., total 990 tablets, weighing total 475 accused of the petitioner, the petitioner Learned counsel for the petitioner has iterated that the petitioner is has further argued that the MAHAVIR SINGH 2025.08.12 18:07 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/ judgment CRM-M-22956- petitioner has been falsely implicated into the FIR in question. Learned couns has argued scrupulously inherent defects. the prosecution available against the petitioner is disclosure statement of co Rohit Kumar. suffered incarceration for more than for. 4. that the allegations raised against the petitioner are serious in nature and, thus, he does not deserve the concession of the regular bail. Learned S has further submitted that the instant bail plea is barred by the rigors of Section 37 of the NDPS Act, and thus, the same ought to be dismissed. Learned State counsel seeks to place on record custody certificate dated Court today, which 5. the available records of the case. 6. investigation was carried out and the challan was presented on Total 37 prosecution till date. The petitioner question solely Rohit Kumar -2025 petitioner has been falsely implicated into the FIR in question. Learned couns argued that the mandatory provisions of the NDPS Act have not been complied with, and thus, the prosecution case suffers from inherent defects. Learned counsel has further iterated that the prosecution version is taken to be correct, the prime available against the petitioner is disclosure statement of co ohit Kumar. Learned counsel has further iterated that the petitioner has suffered incarceration for more than 08 months Learned State counsel has opposed the present petition by arguing that the allegations raised against the petitioner are serious in nature and, thus, he does not deserve the concession of the regular bail. Learned S has further submitted that the instant bail plea is barred by the rigors of Section 37 of the NDPS Act, and thus, the same ought to be dismissed. Learned State counsel seeks to place on record custody certificate dated , which is taken on record. I have heard counsel for the rival parties and have gone through the available records of the case. The petitioner was arrested on investigation was carried out and the challan was presented on prosecution witnesses have been cited, but The petitioner has been implicated as an accused in the FIR in question solely on the basis of disclosure statement of Rohit Kumar. As per the prosecution version, there is no other material 2 petitioner has been falsely implicated into the FIR in question. Learned counsel that the mandatory provisions of the NDPS Act have not been complied with, and thus, the prosecution case suffers from further iterated that assuming arguando, is taken to be correct, the prime prosecution evidence available against the petitioner is disclosure statement of co-accused, namely, Learned counsel has further iterated that the petitioner has months. Thus, regular bail is prayed Learned State counsel has opposed the present petition by arguing that the allegations raised against the petitioner are serious in nature and, thus, he does not deserve the concession of the regular bail. Learned State counsel has further submitted that the instant bail plea is barred by the rigors of Section 37 of the NDPS Act, and thus, the same ought to be dismissed. Learned State counsel seeks to place on record custody certificate dated 11.08.2025, in the I have heard counsel for the rival parties and have gone through The petitioner was arrested on 18.11.2024, whereinafter, investigation was carried out and the challan was presented on 10.02.2025. witnesses have been cited, but none has been examined has been implicated as an accused in the FIR in on the basis of disclosure statement of co-accused, namely, As per the prosecution version, there is no other material 2 el that the mandatory provisions of the NDPS Act have not been complied with, and thus, the prosecution case suffers from , prosecution evidence , Learned counsel has further iterated that the petitioner has . Thus, regular bail is prayed Learned State counsel has opposed the present petition by arguing that the allegations raised against the petitioner are serious in nature and, thus, tate counsel has further submitted that the instant bail plea is barred by the rigors of Section 37 of the NDPS Act, and thus, the same ought to be dismissed. Learned State the I have heard counsel for the rival parties and have gone through , whereinafter, . none has been examined has been implicated as an accused in the FIR in accused, namely, As per the prosecution version, there is no other material MAHAVIR SINGH 2025.08.12 18:07 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/ judgment CRM-M-22956- available to connect the petitioner with the contraband disclosure statement. It is pertinent to note the absence of corroborative evidence hold limited evidentiary value and cannot be sole basis for implicating the petitioner unsubstantiated statement raises serious doubts about the fairness and objectivity of the investigation. It is not in dispute that the petitioner was not present at the spot. The veracity and weightage required to be attached to the disclosure statement made by the co trial. The rival ratiocinated upon during the course of trial. This Court does not deem it appropriate to delve deep into these rival contentions, at this stage, lest it may prejudice the trial. Nothing tang likelihood of the petitioner absconding from the process of justice or interfering with the prosecution evidence. 6.1. by this Court in 65094 65094 65094 65094----2024 2024 2024 2024 decidendi of the judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in versus State of Tamil Nadu, AIR 2020 Supreme Court 5592; Abdul Hamid Chandmiya @ Ladoo Bapu Control Bureau, 2024 INSC 290; Ahmad Arimutta & Anr.’, 2022 (1) RCR (Criminal) 762; and The State of Haryana, bear 1266/2023, decided on 17.05.2023 -2025 available to connect the petitioner with the contraband disclosure statement. It is pertinent to note that such disclosure statements, in the absence of corroborative evidence hold limited evidentiary value and cannot be sole basis for implicating the petitioner unsubstantiated statement raises serious doubts about the fairness and jectivity of the investigation. It is not in dispute that the petitioner was not present at the spot. The veracity and weightage required to be attached to the disclosure statement made by the co-accused will be fully tested at the time of The rival contentions raised at Bar give rise to debatable issues shall be ratiocinated upon during the course of trial. This Court does not deem it appropriate to delve deep into these rival contentions, at this stage, lest it may prejudice the trial. Nothing tangible has been brought forward to indicate the likelihood of the petitioner absconding from the process of justice or interfering with the prosecution evidence. At this juncture, it would be apposite by this Court in Anshul Sardana versus State of Punjab Anshul Sardana versus State of Punjab Anshul Sardana versus State of Punjab Anshul Sardana versus State of Punjab (2025: PHHC:004198), wherein of the judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in versus State of Tamil Nadu, AIR 2020 Supreme Court 5592; Abdul Hamid Chandmiya @ Ladoo Bapu versus State of Gujrat, Narcotics Control Bureau, 2024 INSC 290; State by (NCB) Bengaluru vs. Pallulabid Ahmad Arimutta & Anr.’, 2022 (1) RCR (Criminal) 762; and The State of Haryana, bearing Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No.(s) 1266/2023, decided on 17.05.2023, has held thus: 3 available to connect the petitioner with the contraband except for the said that such disclosure statements, in the absence of corroborative evidence hold limited evidentiary value and cannot be sole basis for implicating the petitioner. The reliance on this unsubstantiated statement raises serious doubts about the fairness and jectivity of the investigation. It is not in dispute that the petitioner was not present at the spot. The veracity and weightage required to be attached to the accused will be fully tested at the time of contentions raised at Bar give rise to debatable issues shall be ratiocinated upon during the course of trial. This Court does not deem it appropriate to delve deep into these rival contentions, at this stage, lest it may ible has been brought forward to indicate the likelihood of the petitioner absconding from the process of justice or interfering it would be apposite to refer to a judgment passed Anshul Sardana versus State of Punjab Anshul Sardana versus State of Punjab Anshul Sardana versus State of Punjab Anshul Sardana versus State of Punjab, passed in CRM CRM CRM CRM----M M M M---- wherein, after relying upon the ratio of the judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Tofan Singh versus State of Tamil Nadu, AIR 2020 Supreme Court 5592; Smt. Najmunisha, versus State of Gujrat, Narcotics State by (NCB) Bengaluru vs. Pallulabid Ahmad Arimutta & Anr.’, 2022 (1) RCR (Criminal) 762; and Vijay Singh vs. ing Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No.(s) has held thus: 3 except for the said that such disclosure statements, in the absence of corroborative evidence hold limited evidentiary value and . The reliance on this unsubstantiated statement raises serious doubts about the fairness and jectivity of the investigation. It is not in dispute that the petitioner was not present at the spot. The veracity and weightage required to be attached to the accused will be fully tested at the time of contentions raised at Bar give rise to debatable issues shall be ratiocinated upon during the course of trial. This Court does not deem it appropriate to delve deep into these rival contentions, at this stage, lest it may ible has been brought forward to indicate the likelihood of the petitioner absconding from the process of justice or interfering passed ---- ratio Tofan Singh Smt. Najmunisha, versus State of Gujrat, Narcotics State by (NCB) Bengaluru vs. Pallulabid Singh vs. ing Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No.(s) MAHAVIR SINGH 2025.08.12 18:07 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/ judgment CRM-M-22956- principles of law. However, while adjudicating a plea for regular bail, this petitioner has been arraigned or implicated, i 6.2. versus State of Punjab versus State of Punjab versus State of Punjab versus State of Punjab (2025:PHHC:089161) postulates emerge: -2025 “6.3 It is a well established principle of law that a confession made by a co-accused under Section 67 of the NDPS Act is inherently a very weak piece of evidence. Such statement(s), by themselves, cannot form the sole basis for the conviction of an individual and must be scrutinized with utmost caution in conjunction with other substantive evidence. Moreover, no recovery has been effected from the possession of the petitioner, who has been subsequently implicated as an accused solely on the basis of disclosure statement of the co regular bail pertains to life and liberty of individual, Courts are obligated to strike a balance between safeguard effective administration of justice as also investigation. The final evidentiary value and admissibility of the disclosure statement made by a co-accused fall within the domain of the trial Court and are to be adjudicated during the course of the trial in accordance with established principles of law. However, while adjudicating a plea for regular bail, this Court cannot remain oblivious to the circumstances under which the petitioner has been arraigned or implicated, i allegations, the evidence linking the petitioner to the offence as well as the specific role attributed to the petitioner in the commission of the alleged offence. A prima facie examination of these factors is essential to ensure that the process of law is not misused, abused or misdirected. Further, this Court in the case of versus State of Punjab versus State of Punjab versus State of Punjab versus State of Punjab passed in (2025:PHHC:089161) has held thus: “14. As a sequitur to above postulates emerge: (I) (i) A bail plea on merits; in respect of an FIR under NDPS Act of 1985 involving offence(s) under Section 19 or Section 24 or Section 27-A thereof and for offence(s) involving commercial quantity; is essentially required to meet with the rigour(s) of Section 37 of NDPS Act. (ii) The rigour(s) of Section 37 of NDPS Act do not apply to a bail plea(s) on medical ground(s), interim bail on account of any exigency including the reason of demise of a close family relative etc. 4 It is a well established principle of law that a confession accused under Section 67 of the NDPS Act is inherently a . Such statement(s), by themselves, cannot form the sole basis for the conviction of an individual and must be scrutinized with utmost caution in conjunction with other substantive evidence. Moreover, no recovery has been effected from the possession of he petitioner, who has been subsequently implicated as an accused solely on the basis of disclosure statement of the co-accused. However, as regular bail pertains to life and liberty of individual, Courts are obligated to strike a balance between safeguarding personal liberty and ensuring the effective administration of justice as also investigation. The final evidentiary value and admissibility of the disclosure statement made by a accused fall within the domain of the trial Court and are to be ted during the course of the trial in accordance with established principles of law. However, while adjudicating a plea for regular bail, this Court cannot remain oblivious to the circumstances under which the petitioner has been arraigned or implicated, including the nature of the allegations, the evidence linking the petitioner to the offence as well as the specific role attributed to the petitioner in the commission of the alleged offence. A prima facie examination of these factors is essential to ensure that the process of law is not misused, abused or misdirected.” Further, this Court in the case of Jaswinder Singh alias Kala Jaswinder Singh alias Kala Jaswinder Singh alias Kala Jaswinder Singh alias Kala passed in CRM CRM CRM CRM----M M M M----33729 33729 33729 33729----2025 2025 2025 2025 As a sequitur to above-said rumination, the following A bail plea on merits; in respect of an FIR under NDPS Act of 1985 involving offence(s) under Section 19 or Section 24 or A thereof and for offence(s) involving commercial quantity; is essentially required to meet with the rigour(s) of The rigour(s) of Section 37 of NDPS Act do not apply to a bail plea(s) on medical ground(s), interim bail on account of any exigency including the reason of demise of a close family relative 4 It is a well established principle of law that a confession accused under Section 67 of the NDPS Act is inherently a . Such statement(s), by themselves, cannot form the sole basis for the conviction of an individual and must be scrutinized with utmost caution in conjunction with other substantive evidence. Moreover, no recovery has been effected from the possession of he petitioner, who has been subsequently implicated as an accused solely accused. However, as regular bail pertains to life and liberty of individual, Courts are obligated ing personal liberty and ensuring the effective administration of justice as also investigation. The final evidentiary value and admissibility of the disclosure statement made by a accused fall within the domain of the trial Court and are to be ted during the course of the trial in accordance with established principles of law. However, while adjudicating a plea for regular bail, this Court cannot remain oblivious to the circumstances under which the ncluding the nature of the allegations, the evidence linking the petitioner to the offence as well as the specific role attributed to the petitioner in the commission of the alleged offence. A prima facie examination of these factors is essential to ensure Jaswinder Singh alias Kala Jaswinder Singh alias Kala Jaswinder Singh alias Kala Jaswinder Singh alias Kala 2025 2025 2025 2025 rumination, the following A bail plea on merits; in respect of an FIR under NDPS Act of 1985 involving offence(s) under Section 19 or Section 24 or A thereof and for offence(s) involving commercial quantity; is essentially required to meet with the rigour(s) of The rigour(s) of Section 37 of NDPS Act do not apply to a bail plea(s) on medical ground(s), interim bail on account of any exigency including the reason of demise of a close family relative MAHAVIR SINGH 2025.08.12 18:07 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/ judgment CRM-M-22956- -2025 (iii) The rigour(s) of Section 3 when bail is sought for on account of long incarceration in view of Article 21 of the Constitution of India i.e. where the bail has suffered long under-trial custody, the trial is procrastinating and folly thereof is not attributable to such bail II. The twin conditions contained in Section 37(1)(b) of NDPS Act are in addition to the conditions/parameters contained in Cr.P.C./BNSS or any other applicable extant law. III. The twin conditions containe are cumulative in nature and not alternative i.e. both the conditions are required to be satisfied for a bail IV. For consideration by bail Court of the condition stipulated in Section 37(1)(b)(i) of NDPS Act i.e. “ for believing that he is not guilty of such offence”: (i) The bail Court ought to sift through all relevant material, including case purpose of adjudicating such bail plea. (ii) Such consideration, concerning the assessment of guilt or innocence, should not mirror the same degree of scrutiny required for an acquittal of the accused at the final adjudication & culmination of trial. (iii) Plea(s) of defence by applicant including material/documents in support thereof, may be looked into by the bail plea. V. For consideration of the condition stipulated in Section 37(1)(b)(ii) i.e. ‘he is not likely to commit any offence (i) The word ‘likely requiring a demonstrable and substantial probability of re offending by the bail theoretical one, as no Court can predict future conduct of the bail-applicant. (ii) The entire factual matrix of a given case including the antecedents of the bail and the nature of offence are required to be delved into. However, the involvement of bail NDPS/other offence canno conclusion of his propensity for committing offence in the future. (iii) The bail-Court may, at the time of granting bail, impose upon the applicant would submit, at such regular time period/interval stipulated by the Court granting bail, an affidavit before concerned Special Judge of NDPS Court/Illaqa (Jurisdictional) Judicial Magistrate/concerned Police 5 The rigour(s) of Section 37 of NDPS Act pale into oblivion when bail is sought for on account of long incarceration in view of Article 21 of the Constitution of India i.e. where the bail-applicant trial custody, the trial is procrastinating is not attributable to such bail-applicant. The twin conditions contained in Section 37(1)(b) of NDPS Act are in addition to the conditions/parameters contained in Cr.P.C./BNSS or any other applicable extant law. The twin conditions contained in Section 37(1)(b) of NDPS Act are cumulative in nature and not alternative i.e. both the conditions are required to be satisfied for a bail-plea to be successful. For consideration by bail Court of the condition stipulated in of NDPS Act i.e. “there are reasonable grounds for believing that he is not guilty of such offence”: The bail Court ought to sift through all relevant material, including case-dairy, exclusively for the limited purpose of adjudicating such bail plea. Such consideration, concerning the assessment of guilt or innocence, should not mirror the same degree of scrutiny required for an acquittal of the accused at the final adjudication & culmination of trial. Plea(s) of defence by applicant-accused, if any, including material/documents in support thereof, may be looked into by the bail-Court while adjudicating such bail For consideration of the condition stipulated in Section 37(1)(b)(ii) he is not likely to commit any offence while on bail’: likely’ ought to be interpreted as requiring a demonstrable and substantial probability of re- offending by the bail-applicant, rather than a mere theoretical one, as no Court can predict future conduct of The entire factual matrix of a given case including the antecedents of the bail-applicant, role ascribed to him, and the nature of offence are required to be delved into. However, the involvement of bail-applicant in another NDPS/other offence cannot ipso facto result in the conclusion of his propensity for committing offence in the Court may, at the time of granting bail, impose upon the applicant-accused a condition that he would submit, at such regular time period/interval as may stipulated by the Court granting bail, an affidavit before concerned Special Judge of NDPS Court/Illaqa (Jurisdictional) Judicial Magistrate/concerned Police 5 7 of NDPS Act pale into oblivion when bail is sought for on account of long incarceration in view of applicant trial custody, the trial is procrastinating The twin conditions contained in Section 37(1)(b) of NDPS Act are in addition to the conditions/parameters contained in d in Section 37(1)(b) of NDPS Act are cumulative in nature and not alternative i.e. both the conditions For consideration by bail Court of the condition stipulated in there are reasonable grounds The bail Court ought to sift through all relevant dairy, exclusively for the limited Such consideration, concerning the assessment of guilt or innocence, should not mirror the same degree of scrutiny required for an acquittal of the accused at the final used, if any, including material/documents in support thereof, may be Court while adjudicating such bail For consideration of the condition stipulated in Section 37(1)(b)(ii) ’ ought to be interpreted as - applicant, rather than a mere theoretical one, as no Court can predict future conduct of The entire factual matrix of a given case including applicant, role ascribed to him, and the nature of offence are required to be delved into. applicant in another result in the conclusion of his propensity for committing offence in the Court may, at the time of granting bail, accused a condition that he as may stipulated by the Court granting bail, an affidavit before concerned Special Judge of NDPS Court/Illaqa (Jurisdictional) Judicial Magistrate/concerned Police MAHAVIR SINGH 2025.08.12 18:07 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/ judgment CRM-M-22956- 6.3. the NDPS Act stands diluted. 7. State counsel, the petitioner has already suffered incarceration for a period of 08 months and petitioner is stated to be involved in 01 more case. However, this factum cannot be a ground sufficient by itself, to decline the concession of regular bail to the petitioner in the FIR in question when a c of regular bail facts/circumstances of the said FIR. Reliance in this regard can be placed upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Rashadi v. State of Rashadi v. State of Rashadi v. State of Rashadi v. State of Division Bench judgment of the Hon’ble Calcutta High Court in case of Sridhar Das v. State, 1998 (2) RCR (Criminal) 477 Sridhar Das v. State, 1998 (2) RCR (Criminal) 477 Sridhar Das v. State, 1998 (2) RCR (Criminal) 477 Sridhar Das v. State, 1998 (2) RCR (Criminal) 477 Court in CRM -2025 Station, to the effect that he has not been involved in commission of any offence after bei the facts of a given case, imposition of such condition may be considered to be sufficient for satisfaction of condition enumerated in Section 37(1)(b)(ii). VI. There is no gainsaying that the nature, mode and extent of of power by a Court; while satisfying itself regarding the conditions stipulated in Section 37 of NDPS Act; shall depend upon the judicial discretion exercised by such Court in the facts and circumstances of a given case. No exhaustive guidelines possibly be laid down as to what would constitute parameters for satisfaction of requirement under Section 37 ( has its own unique facts/circumstances. Making such an attempt is nothing but a utopian endeavour. judicial wisdom and discretion of the Court dealing with such matter.” In this view of the matter, the rigor imposed under Section 37 of the NDPS Act stands diluted. As per custody certificate dated State counsel, the petitioner has already suffered incarceration for a period of and 24 days. Further, as per the said custody certificate, the petitioner is stated to be involved in 01 more case. However, this factum cannot be a ground sufficient by itself, to decline the concession of regular bail to the petitioner in the FIR in question when a c of regular bail qua the FIR in question by ratiocinating upon the facts/circumstances of the said FIR. Reliance in this regard can be placed upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Rashadi v. State of Rashadi v. State of Rashadi v. State of Rashadi v. State of U.P. and another, 2012 (1) RCR (Criminal) 586 U.P. and another, 2012 (1) RCR (Criminal) 586 U.P. and another, 2012 (1) RCR (Criminal) 586 U.P. and another, 2012 (1) RCR (Criminal) 586 Division Bench judgment of the Hon’ble Calcutta High Court in case of Sridhar Das v. State, 1998 (2) RCR (Criminal) 477 Sridhar Das v. State, 1998 (2) RCR (Criminal) 477 Sridhar Das v. State, 1998 (2) RCR (Criminal) 477 Sridhar Das v. State, 1998 (2) RCR (Criminal) 477 Court in CRM-M No.38822-2022 titled as 6 Station, to the effect that he has not been involved in commission of any offence after being released on bail. In the facts of a given case, imposition of such condition may be considered to be sufficient for satisfaction of condition enumerated in Section 37(1)(b)(ii). There is no gainsaying that the nature, mode and extent of exercise of power by a Court; while satisfying itself regarding the conditions stipulated in Section 37 of NDPS Act; shall depend upon the judicial discretion exercised by such Court in the facts and circumstances of a given case. No exhaustive guidelines can possibly be laid down as to what would constitute parameters for satisfaction of requirement under Section 37 (ibid) as every case has its own unique facts/circumstances. Making such an attempt is nothing but a utopian endeavour. Ergo, this issue is best left to the judicial wisdom and discretion of the Court dealing with such In this view of the matter, the rigor imposed under Section 37 of As per custody certificate dated 11.08.2025 filed by the learned State counsel, the petitioner has already suffered incarceration for a period of Further, as per the said custody certificate, the petitioner is stated to be involved in 01 more case. However, this factum cannot be a ground sufficient by itself, to decline the concession of regular bail to the petitioner in the FIR in question when a case is made out for grant the FIR in question by ratiocinating upon the facts/circumstances of the said FIR. Reliance in this regard can be placed upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Maulana Mohd. Amir Maulana Mohd. Amir Maulana Mohd. Amir Maulana Mohd. Amir U.P. and another, 2012 (1) RCR (Criminal) 586 U.P. and another, 2012 (1) RCR (Criminal) 586 U.P. and another, 2012 (1) RCR (Criminal) 586 U.P. and another, 2012 (1) RCR (Criminal) 586; a Division Bench judgment of the Hon’ble Calcutta High Court in case of Sridhar Das v. State, 1998 (2) RCR (Criminal) 477 Sridhar Das v. State, 1998 (2) RCR (Criminal) 477 Sridhar Das v. State, 1998 (2) RCR (Criminal) 477 Sridhar Das v. State, 1998 (2) RCR (Criminal) 477 & judgments of this 2022 titled as Akhilesh Singh v. State of Akhilesh Singh v. State of Akhilesh Singh v. State of Akhilesh Singh v. State of 6 Station, to the effect that he has not been involved in ng released on bail. In the facts of a given case, imposition of such condition may be considered to be sufficient for satisfaction of condition exercise of power by a Court; while satisfying itself regarding the conditions stipulated in Section 37 of NDPS Act; shall depend upon the judicial discretion exercised by such Court in the facts can possibly be laid down as to what would constitute parameters for ) as every case has its own unique facts/circumstances. Making such an attempt is best left to the judicial wisdom and discretion of the Court dealing with such In this view of the matter, the rigor imposed under Section 37 of filed by the learned State counsel, the petitioner has already suffered incarceration for a period of Further, as per the said custody certificate, the petitioner is stated to be involved in 01 more case. However, this factum cannot be a ground sufficient by itself, to decline the concession of regular ase is made out for grant the FIR in question by ratiocinating upon the facts/circumstances of the said FIR. Reliance in this regard can be placed Maulana Mohd. Amir Maulana Mohd. Amir Maulana Mohd. Amir Maulana Mohd. Amir ; a Division Bench judgment of the Hon’ble Calcutta High Court in case of & judgments of this Akhilesh Singh v. State of Akhilesh Singh v. State of Akhilesh Singh v. State of Akhilesh Singh v. State of MAHAVIR SINGH 2025.08.12 18:07 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/ judgment CRM-M-22956- HHHHaryana aryana aryana aryana, decided on 29.11.2021, and RCR (Criminal) 191. RCR (Criminal) 191. RCR (Criminal) 191. RCR (Criminal) 191. not warranted in the facts and circumstances of the case. 8. ordered to be released on regular bail on his furnishing bail/surety bonds to the satisfaction of the Ld. concerned trial Court/Duty Magistrate. However, in addition to conditions that may be imposed by the concer Court/Duty Magistrate, the petitioner shall remain bound by the following conditions:- -2025 , decided on 29.11.2021, and Balraj v. State of Haryana, 1998 (3) Balraj v. State of Haryana, 1998 (3) Balraj v. State of Haryana, 1998 (3) Balraj v. State of Haryana, 1998 (3) RCR (Criminal) 191. RCR (Criminal) 191. RCR (Criminal) 191. RCR (Criminal) 191. Suffice to say, further detention of the petitioner as an undertrial is not warranted in the facts and circumstances of the case. In view of above, the present petition is allowed. Petitioner is ordered to be released on regular bail on his furnishing bail/surety bonds to the satisfaction of the Ld. concerned trial Court/Duty Magistrate. However, in addition to conditions that may be imposed by the concer Court/Duty Magistrate, the petitioner shall remain bound by the following (i) The petitioner shall not mis (ii) The petitioner shall not tamper with any evidence, oral or documentary, during the trial. (iii) The petitioner shall not absent himself on any date before the trial. (iv) The petitioner shall not commit any offence while on bail. (v) The petitioner shall deposit his passport, if any, with the trial Court. (vi) The petitioner shall give his c Investigating Officer/SHO of concerned Police Station and shall not change his cell permission of the trial Court/Illaqa Magistrate. (vii) The petitioner shall not in any manner try to delay the trial. (viii) The petitioner shall submit, on the first working day of every month, an affidavit, before the concerned trial Court, to the effect that he has not been involved in commission of any offence after being released on bail. In case the petitioner is foun offence after his being enlarged on bail in the present FIR, on the basis of his affidavit or otherwise, the State is mandated to move, forthwith, for cancellation of his bail which plea, but of course, shall be ratiocinated upon merits thereof. 7 Balraj v. State of Haryana, 1998 (3) Balraj v. State of Haryana, 1998 (3) Balraj v. State of Haryana, 1998 (3) Balraj v. State of Haryana, 1998 (3) Suffice to say, further detention of the petitioner as an undertrial is not warranted in the facts and circumstances of the case. present petition is allowed. Petitioner is ordered to be released on regular bail on his furnishing bail/surety bonds to the satisfaction of the Ld. concerned trial Court/Duty Magistrate. However, in addition to conditions that may be imposed by the concerned trial Court/Duty Magistrate, the petitioner shall remain bound by the following The petitioner shall not mis-use the liberty granted. The petitioner shall not tamper with any evidence, oral or documentary, during the trial. The petitioner shall not absent himself on any date before The petitioner shall not commit any offence while on The petitioner shall deposit his passport, if any, with the The petitioner shall give his cellphone number to the Investigating Officer/SHO of concerned Police Station and shall not change his cell-phone number without prior permission of the trial Court/Illaqa Magistrate. The petitioner shall not in any manner try to delay the The petitioner shall submit, on the first working day of every month, an affidavit, before the concerned trial Court, to the effect that he has not been involved in commission of any offence after being released on bail. In case the petitioner is found to be involved in any offence after his being enlarged on bail in the present FIR, on the basis of his affidavit or otherwise, the State is mandated to move, forthwith, for cancellation of his bail which plea, but of course, shall be ratiocinated upon 7 Balraj v. State of Haryana, 1998 (3) Balraj v. State of Haryana, 1998 (3) Balraj v. State of Haryana, 1998 (3) Balraj v. State of Haryana, 1998 (3) Suffice to say, further detention of the petitioner as an undertrial is present petition is allowed. Petitioner is ordered to be released on regular bail on his furnishing bail/surety bonds to the satisfaction of the Ld. concerned trial Court/Duty Magistrate. However, ned trial Court/Duty Magistrate, the petitioner shall remain bound by the following The petitioner shall not tamper with any evidence, oral or The petitioner shall not absent himself on any date before The petitioner shall not commit any offence while on The petitioner shall deposit his passport, if any, with the ellphone number to the Investigating Officer/SHO of concerned Police Station phone number without prior The petitioner shall not in any manner try to delay the The petitioner shall submit, on the first working day of every month, an affidavit, before the concerned trial Court, to the effect that he has not been involved in commission of any offence after being released on bail. d to be involved in any offence after his being enlarged on bail in the present FIR, on the basis of his affidavit or otherwise, the State is mandated to move, forthwith, for cancellation of his bail which plea, but of course, shall be ratiocinated upon MAHAVIR SINGH 2025.08.12 18:07 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/ judgment CRM-M-22956- 9. which may be imposed by concerned trial Court/Duty Magistrate as directed hereinabove or upon showing any other sufficient cause, the State/complainant shall be at liberty to 10. 11. opinion on the merits of the case. 12. application, if any, shall also stands disposed off. August 12 August 12 August 12 August 12,,,, 2025 2025 2025 2025 mahavir Whether speaking/reasoned: Whether reportable: -2025 In case of breach of any of the aforesaid conditions and those which may be imposed by concerned trial Court/Duty Magistrate as directed hereinabove or upon showing any other sufficient cause, the State/complainant shall be at liberty to move cancellation of bail of the petitioner. Ordered accordingly. Nothing said hereinabove shall be construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case. Since the main case has been decided, pending miscellaneous application, if any, shall also stands disposed off. 2025 2025 2025 2025 Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No Whether reportable: Yes/No 8 In case of breach of any of the aforesaid conditions and those which may be imposed by concerned trial Court/Duty Magistrate as directed hereinabove or upon showing any other sufficient cause, the State/complainant move cancellation of bail of the petitioner. Nothing said hereinabove shall be construed as an expression of Since the main case has been decided, pending miscellaneous application, if any, shall also stands disposed off. ((((SUMEET GOEL SUMEET GOEL SUMEET GOEL SUMEET GOEL)))) JUDGE JUDGE JUDGE JUDGE 8 In case of breach of any of the aforesaid conditions and those which may be imposed by concerned trial Court/Duty Magistrate as directed hereinabove or upon showing any other sufficient cause, the State/complainant Nothing said hereinabove shall be construed as an expression of Since the main case has been decided, pending miscellaneous MAHAVIR SINGH 2025.08.12 18:07 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/ judgment