CRM-M-25109- 227 227 227 227 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 Jaswant Singh State of Haryana CORAM: CORAM: CORAM: CORAM: Present: Present: Present: Present:- SUMEET GOEL SUMEET GOEL SUMEET GOEL SUMEET GOEL 1. Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, regular bail to the petitioner in case bearing FIR No registered for the off Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act’), at Police Station 2. accused of being involved in grams of Heroin Buta Singh, disclosure of said -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 CHANDIGARH CHANDIGARH CHANDIGARH CHANDIGARH Date of decision: Date of decision: Date of decision: Date of decision: Jaswant Singh 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. S.K. Verma, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Gurmeet Singh, AAG Haryana ***** ***** ***** ***** SUMEET GOEL SUMEET GOEL SUMEET GOEL SUMEET GOEL, J. (ORAL) , J. (ORAL) , J. (ORAL) , J. (ORAL) Present petition has been filed under Section ya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short ‘BNSS’) regular bail to the petitioner in case bearing FIR No registered for the offences punishable under Section Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances at Police Station Garhi, District Jind. The gravamen of the FIR in question is that the petitioner is accused of being involved in an FIR pertaining to NDPS Act involving Heroin allegedly found in the possession and the petitioner has been nominated, in this case, on the disclosure of said co-accused. 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 AT AT AT CHANDIGARH CHANDIGARH CHANDIGARH CHANDIGARH CRM CRM CRM CRM----M M M M----25109 25109 25109 25109----2025 2025 2025 2025 Date of decision: Date of decision: Date of decision: Date of decision: August 18, August 18, August 18, August 18, 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 for the petitioner. , AAG Haryana. Present petition has been filed under Section 483 of the 2023 (for short ‘BNSS’) for grant of regular bail to the petitioner in case bearing FIR No.0019 dated 31.01.2024, ences punishable under Sections 21b & 27-A of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short ‘NDPS The gravamen of the FIR in question is that the petitioner is an FIR pertaining to NDPS Act involving 22 possession of co-accused, namely and the petitioner has been nominated, in this case, on the 1 2025 2025 2025 2025 2025 2025 2025 2025 Petitioner ….Respondent of the for grant of , of the (for short ‘NDPS an 22 namely and the petitioner has been nominated, in this case, on the MAHAVIR SINGH 2025.08.18 18:06 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/ judgment CRM-M-25109- 3. is in custody since submitted 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 an accused is the disclosure statement of co Learned counsel has namely, Buta Singh, has already been granted the concession of regular bail by the learned trial Court, on iterated that the petitioner has suffered incarceration fo months. Thus, regular bail is prayed for. 4. arguing that the allegations raised against the petitioner are serious in nature and, thus, he does not deserve the concession of the re State counsel seeks to place on record custody certificate dated in the Court, which is taken on record. 5. the available records of the case. 6. investigation 12.02.2025. Total been examined till date. the FIR in question solely on the basis of disclosure statement of -2025 Learned counsel for the petitioner has iterated that the petitioner is in custody since 07.02.2025. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further submitted 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 sole basis to arra is the disclosure statement of co Learned counsel has also argued that the co namely, Buta Singh, has already been granted the concession of regular bail by the learned trial Court, on 02.04.2024 iterated that the petitioner has suffered incarceration fo Thus, regular bail is prayed for. 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 re State counsel seeks to place on record custody certificate dated Court, 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 challan . Total 17 prosecution witnesses have been examined till date. The petitioner has been implicated as an accused in the FIR in question solely on the basis of disclosure statement of 2 Learned counsel for the petitioner has iterated that the petitioner . Learned counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that the mandatory provisions of the NDPS Act have not been complied with, and thus, the prosecution case suffers from inherent defects. sole basis to array the petitioner as is the disclosure statement of co-accused, namely Buta Singh. also argued that the co-accused of the petitioner, namely, Buta Singh, has already been granted the concession of regular bail 02.04.2024. Learned counsel has further iterated that the petitioner has suffered incarceration for more than 05 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 seeks to place on record custody certificate dated 17.08.2025 I have heard counsel for the rival parties and have gone through oner was arrested on 07.02.2025 whereinafter was carried out and challan qua him was presented on prosecution witnesses have been cited, but none has has been implicated as an accused in the FIR in question solely on the basis of disclosure statement of co- 2 Learned counsel for the petitioner has iterated that the petitioner . Learned counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that the mandatory provisions of the NDPS Act have not been complied with, and thus, the prosecution case suffers from inherent defects. s Singh. accused of the petitioner, namely, Buta Singh, has already been granted the concession of regular bail Learned counsel has further 05 Learned State counsel has opposed the present petition by arguing that the allegations raised against the petitioner are serious in nature gular bail. Learned 17.08.2025 I have heard counsel for the rival parties and have gone through whereinafter was presented on , but none has has been implicated as an accused in - MAHAVIR SINGH 2025.08.18 18:06 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/ judgment CRM-M-25109- accused-Buta Singh, from whom recovered. It is not in dispute already been trial Court. available to connect the petitioner with the contraband disclosure statement. It is pertinent to no 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 of trial. The which 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. forward to indicate the likelihood of the petitioner absconding from the process of justice or interfering with the prosecution evidence. 6.1. passed by this CRM CRM CRM CRM----M M M M----65094 65094 65094 65094 the ratio decidendi Singh versus State of Tamil Nadu, AIR 2020 Supreme Court 5592; -2025 Buta Singh, from whom 22 grams of Heroin was allegedly It is not in dispute that said co-accused, namely, Buta Singh has been granted concession of regular As per the prosecution version, there is no other material 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 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-accused will be fully tested at the time 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 passed 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 65094 65094 65094 65094----2024 2024 2024 2024 (2025: PHHC:004198) decidendi of the judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Singh versus State of Tamil Nadu, AIR 2020 Supreme Court 5592; 3 22 grams of Heroin was allegedly accused, namely, Buta Singh has granted concession of regular bail by the concerned learned As per the prosecution version, there is no other material 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 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 accused will be fully tested at the time 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 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. it would be apposite to refer to a judgment 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 (2025: PHHC:004198), wherein, after relying upon of the judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Tofan Singh versus State of Tamil Nadu, AIR 2020 Supreme Court 5592; Smt. 3 22 grams of Heroin was allegedly accused, namely, Buta Singh has by the concerned learned As per the prosecution version, there is no other material 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 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 accused will be fully tested at the time , 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 Nothing tangible has been brought forward to indicate the likelihood of the petitioner absconding from the to refer to a judgment passed in after relying upon Tofan Smt. MAHAVIR SINGH 2025.08.18 18:06 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/ judgment CRM-M-25109- Najmunisha, Gujrat, Narcotics Control Bureau, 2024 INSC 290; Bengaluru vs. Pallulabid Ahmad Arimutta & Anr.’, 2022 ( (Criminal) 762; and Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No.(s) 1266/2023, decided on 17.05.2023 thus: principles of law. However, while adjudicating a plea for regular bail, this petitioner has been arraigned or implicated, including the nature of the 6.2. versus State of Punjab versus State of Punjab versus State of Punjab versus State of Punjab (2025:PHHC:089161) -2025 Najmunisha, Abdul Hamid Chandmiya @ Ladoo Bapu Gujrat, Narcotics Control Bureau, 2024 INSC 290; Bengaluru vs. Pallulabid Ahmad Arimutta & Anr.’, 2022 ( (Criminal) 762; and Vijay Singh vs. The State of Haryana, bearing Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No.(s) 1266/2023, decided on 17.05.2023 “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 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 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 circum 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 versus State of Punjab versus State of Punjab versus State of Punjab versus State of Punjab passed in (2025:PHHC:089161) has held thus: 4 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 Singh vs. The State of Haryana, bearing Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No.(s) 1266/2023, decided on 17.05.2023, has held It is a well established principle of law that a confession 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 ence. 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-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 cused 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, 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 nce. 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 4 versus State of State by (NCB) 1) RCR Singh vs. The State of Haryana, bearing Special has held It is a well established principle of law that a confession 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 ence. Moreover, no recovery has been effected from the possession of the petitioner, who has been subsequently implicated as an accused solely accused. However, as 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 cused 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 stances 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 nce. 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 MAHAVIR SINGH 2025.08.18 18:06 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/ judgment CRM-M-25109- postulates emerge: -2025 “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 exigency including the reason of demise of a close family relative etc. (iii) 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 o 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 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 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 si 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 while on bail (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. 5 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 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 and folly thereof is not attributable to such bail-applicant. The twin conditions contained in Section 37(1)(b) of NDPS Act 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 for a bail-plea to be successful. For consideration by bail Court of the condition stipulated in Section 37(1)(b)(i) 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 r 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 5 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 account of any exigency including the reason of demise of a close family relative 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 applicant trial custody, the trial is procrastinating The twin conditions contained in Section 37(1)(b) of NDPS Act the conditions/parameters contained in The twin conditions contained 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 ft through all relevant dairy, exclusively for the limited Such consideration, concerning the assessment of guilt or innocence, should not mirror the same degree of r an acquittal of the accused at the final accused, 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 MAHAVIR SINGH 2025.08.18 18:06 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/ judgment CRM-M-25109- 6.3. of the NDPS Act stands diluted. 7. of the NDPS Act stands diluted. 7. State counsel, the petitioner has already suffered incarceration for a period of 05 months and 07 days petitioner is stated to be involved in 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 of regular bail -2025 (ii) The entire factual matrix of a the antecedents of the bail and the nature of offence are required to be delved into. However, the involvement of bail NDPS/other offence cannot 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 as may stipulated by the Court grant concerned Special Judge of NDPS Court/Illaqa (Jurisdictional) Judicial Magistrate/concerned Police 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). VI. There is no gainsaying that the nature, mode and extent of exercise of power by a Court; while satisfy 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 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 05 months and 07 days. Further, as per the said custody certificate the petitioner is stated to be involved in multiple 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 of regular bail qua the FIR in question by ratiocinating upon the 6 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 n 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 Station, to the effect that he has not been involved in commission of any offence after being released on bail. In f 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 tion of the Court dealing with such In this view of the matter, the rigor imposed under Section 37 As per custody certificate dated 17.08.2025 filed by the learned State counsel, the petitioner has already suffered incarceration for a period Further, as per the said custody certificate the multiple cases/FIRs. However, this 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 the FIR in question by ratiocinating upon the 6 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 n of his propensity for committing offence in the Court may, at the time of granting bail, accused a condition that he would submit, at such regular time period/interval as may ing bail, an affidavit before concerned Special Judge of NDPS Court/Illaqa (Jurisdictional) Judicial Magistrate/concerned Police Station, to the effect that he has not been involved in commission of any offence after being released on bail. In f a given case, imposition of such condition may be considered to be sufficient for satisfaction of condition There is no gainsaying that the nature, mode and extent of exercise ing 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 constitute parameters for ) as every case has its own unique facts/circumstances. Making such an attempt is this issue is best left to the tion of the Court dealing with such In this view of the matter, the rigor imposed under Section 37 filed by the learned State counsel, the petitioner has already suffered incarceration for a period Further, as per the said custody certificate the . However, this 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 the FIR in question by ratiocinating upon the MAHAVIR SINGH 2025.08.18 18:06 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/ judgment CRM-M-25109- facts/circumstances of the said upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Rashadi v. State of U.P. and another, 2012 (1) RCR (Criminal) 586 Rashadi v. State of U.P. and another, 2012 (1) RCR (Criminal) 586 Rashadi v. State of U.P. and another, 2012 (1) RCR (Criminal) 586 Rashadi v. State of U.P. and another, 2012 (1) RCR (Criminal) 586 Division Bench judgment of the Hon’ble Calcutta High Court in case of Sridh Sridh Sridh Sridhar Das v. State, 1998 (2) RCR (Criminal) 477 ar Das v. State, 1998 (2) RCR (Criminal) 477 ar Das v. State, 1998 (2) RCR (Criminal) 477 ar Das v. State, 1998 (2) RCR (Criminal) 477 Court in CRM Haryana Haryana Haryana Haryana, decided on 29.11.2021, and RCR (Criminal) 191. RCR (Criminal) 191. RCR (Criminal) 191. RCR (Criminal) 191. undertrial is 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 concerned trial Court/Duty Magistrate, the petitioner shall remain bound by the following conditions: -2025 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 U.P. and another, 2012 (1) RCR (Criminal) 586 Rashadi v. State of U.P. and another, 2012 (1) RCR (Criminal) 586 Rashadi v. State of U.P. and another, 2012 (1) RCR (Criminal) 586 Rashadi v. State of U.P. and another, 2012 (1) RCR (Criminal) 586 Division Bench judgment of the Hon’ble Calcutta High Court in case of ar Das v. State, 1998 (2) RCR (Criminal) 477 ar Das v. State, 1998 (2) RCR (Criminal) 477 ar Das v. State, 1998 (2) RCR (Criminal) 477 ar Das v. State, 1998 (2) RCR (Criminal) 477 Court in CRM-M No.38822-2022 titled as , 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 deten 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 isfaction 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 (i) The petitioner shall not mi (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 whi bail. (v) The petitioner shall deposit his passport, if any, with the trial Court. (vi) The petitioner shall give his cellphone number to the Investigating Officer/SHO of concerned Police Station and shall not change his cell permission of the trial Court/Illaqa Magistrate. 7 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 Rashadi v. State of U.P. and another, 2012 (1) RCR (Criminal) 586 Rashadi v. State of U.P. and another, 2012 (1) RCR (Criminal) 586 Rashadi v. State of U.P. and another, 2012 (1) RCR (Criminal) 586 Rashadi v. State of U.P. and another, 2012 (1) RCR (Criminal) 586; a Division Bench judgment of the Hon’ble Calcutta High Court in case of ar Das v. State, 1998 (2) RCR (Criminal) 477 ar Das v. State, 1998 (2) RCR (Criminal) 477 ar Das v. State, 1998 (2) RCR (Criminal) 477 ar 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 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. 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 isfaction 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. 7 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 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) tion of the petitioner as an 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 isfaction 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 tamper with any evidence, oral or The petitioner shall not absent himself on any date before le 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 prior MAHAVIR SINGH 2025.08.18 18:06 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/ judgment CRM-M-25109- 9. which may be imposed by concerned trial Court hereinabove or upon showing any other sufficient cause, the State/complainant shall be at liberty to move cancellation of bail of the petitioner. 10. 11. opinion on the merits of the case. 12. application, if any, shall also stands disposed off. August 18, August 18, August 18, August 18, 2025 2025 2025 2025 mahavir Whether speaking/reasoned: Whether reportable: -2025 (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 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, mandated to move, forthwith, for cancellation of his bail which plea, but of course, shall be ratiocinated upon merits thereof. In case of breach of any of the aforesaid conditions and those which may be imposed by concerned trial Court hereinabove or upon showing any other sufficient cause, the State/complainant shall be at liberty to move cancellation of bail of the Ordered accordingly. Nothing said hereinabove shall be construed as 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 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 e 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 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 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 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 e 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 the State is mandated to move, forthwith, for cancellation of his bail which plea, but of course, shall be ratiocinated upon In case of breach of any of the aforesaid conditions and those /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 an expression of Since the main case has been decided, pending miscellaneous MAHAVIR SINGH 2025.08.18 18:06 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/ judgment