CRM-M- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT 230 Naresh State of Haryana CORAM: Present: SUMEET GOEL 1. 2023 seeking 07.01.2025 Station Machhroli, District Jhajjar. 2. of Ganja came to be recovered from one Ashok @ Chotu and Sandeep. Thereafter, 12.01.2025, the petitioner was arraigned as an accused. 3. forth by the prosecution is highly implausible, concocted and fabricat to implicate the petitioner in a false case. Learned counsel has further iterated that the petitioner is not named in the FIR and has been implicated solely on the basis of disclosure statement of a co inadmissible under accused has been deliberately and improperly fabricated by the investigating -33052-2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH V/s State of Haryana CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL Mr. Sushil Sheoran, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Gurmeet Singh, AAG Haryana. ***** SUMEET GOEL, J. (Oral) Present petition has been filed under Section 48 seeking grant of regular bail to the petitioner in FIR No. 07.01.2025, under Sections 20/29 of the Machhroli, District Jhajjar. The case set up in the FIR in question is of Ganja came to be recovered from one Ashok @ Chotu and Sandeep. Thereafter, upon a disclosure made by co 12.01.2025, the petitioner was arraigned as an accused. Learned counsel for the petitioner has forth by the prosecution is highly implausible, concocted and fabricat to implicate the petitioner in a false case. Learned counsel has further iterated that the petitioner is not named in the FIR and has been implicated solely on the basis of disclosure statement of a co inadmissible under law. Moreover, the disclosure statement of the co accused has been deliberately and improperly fabricated by the investigating 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-33052-2025 Date of decision: 07.07.202 ....Petitioner ....Respondent HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL Sushil Sheoran, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Gurmeet Singh, AAG Haryana. ***** Present petition has been filed under Section 483 of BNSS, bail to the petitioner in FIR No.3 dated the NDPS Act, registered at Police The case set up in the FIR in question is that 35 kgs 350 grams of Ganja came to be recovered from one Ashok @ Chotu and Sandeep. upon a disclosure made by co-accused Ashok @ Chotu on 12.01.2025, the petitioner was arraigned as an accused. Learned counsel for the petitioner has iterated that the story put forth by the prosecution is highly implausible, concocted and fabricated just to implicate the petitioner in a false case. Learned counsel has further iterated that the petitioner is not named in the FIR and has been implicated solely on the basis of disclosure statement of a co-accused, which is over, the disclosure statement of the co accused has been deliberately and improperly fabricated by the investigating .2025 of BNSS, dated NDPS Act, registered at Police 350 grams of Ganja came to be recovered from one Ashok @ Chotu and Sandeep. accused Ashok @ Chotu on iterated that the story put ed just to implicate the petitioner in a false case. Learned counsel has further iterated that the petitioner is not named in the FIR and has been implicated accused, which is over, the disclosure statement of the co- accused has been deliberately and improperly fabricated by the investigating AJAY KUMAR 2025.07.07 18:31 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M- agency while the petitioner has no involvement whatsoever in the alleged incident. Furthermore, there is no material on record to connect petitioner with the alleged recovery and the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the instant case. According to learned counsel, the misuse of the procedural safeguards and reliance on inadmissible evidence highlights the malicious intent behind interference by this Court to release the petitioner from unjustified detention. It has been further submitted that the alleged recovery was not made from the petitioner but from some other persons. Based on th in the FIR, it is contended that no case is made against the petitioner, and the prosecution’s narrative appears to be an attempt to falsely implicate the petitioner. The learned counsel further maintains that the entire prosecution case relies on the testimony of official witnesses, raising doubts about the credibility of the prosecution’s account. filed before the competent Court of jurisdiction and hence no useful purpose would be served by keepin matter, learned counsel has prayed for grant of regular bail. 4. instant petition by arguing that the allegations against the petitioner are serious in nature. Learned State counsel has further submitted that the FIR in question pertains to recovery of quantity) and, therefore, the bar under Section 37 of the NDPS, 1985 is attracted. Furthermore, expressing c petitioner fleeing from the trial proceedings, learned State counsel submits that petitioner ought not be granted the concession of regular bail. Learned -33052-2025 agency while the petitioner has no involvement whatsoever in the alleged incident. Furthermore, there is no material on record to connect petitioner with the alleged recovery and the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the instant case. According to learned counsel, the misuse of the procedural safeguards and reliance on inadmissible evidence highlights the malicious intent behind the action of the prosecution and warranting interference by this Court to release the petitioner from unjustified detention. It has been further submitted that the alleged recovery was not made from the petitioner but from some other persons. Based on th in the FIR, it is contended that no case is made against the petitioner, and the prosecution’s narrative appears to be an attempt to falsely implicate the petitioner. The learned counsel further maintains that the entire prosecution case relies on the testimony of official witnesses, raising doubts about the credibility of the prosecution’s account. Since the challan has already been filed before the competent Court of jurisdiction and hence no useful purpose would be served by keeping the petitioner in custody. In this view of the matter, learned counsel has prayed for grant of regular bail. Per contra, learned State counsel has strenuously opposed the instant petition by arguing that the allegations against the petitioner are rious in nature. Learned State counsel has further submitted that the FIR in question pertains to recovery of 35 Kg 350 grams of Ganja quantity) and, therefore, the bar under Section 37 of the NDPS, 1985 is attracted. Furthermore, expressing concerns about the possibility of the petitioner fleeing from the trial proceedings, learned State counsel submits that petitioner ought not be granted the concession of regular bail. Learned 2 agency while the petitioner has no involvement whatsoever in the alleged incident. Furthermore, there is no material on record to connect petitioner with the alleged recovery and the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the instant case. According to learned counsel, the misuse of the procedural safeguards and reliance on inadmissible evidence highlights the action of the prosecution and warranting interference by this Court to release the petitioner from unjustified detention. It has been further submitted that the alleged recovery was not made from the petitioner but from some other persons. Based on the allegations outlined in the FIR, it is contended that no case is made against the petitioner, and the prosecution’s narrative appears to be an attempt to falsely implicate the petitioner. The learned counsel further maintains that the entire prosecution case relies on the testimony of official witnesses, raising doubts about the Since the challan has already been filed before the competent Court of jurisdiction and hence no useful purpose g the petitioner in custody. In this view of the matter, learned counsel has prayed for grant of regular bail. learned State counsel has strenuously opposed the instant petition by arguing that the allegations against the petitioner are rious in nature. Learned State counsel has further submitted that the FIR in 35 Kg 350 grams of Ganja (commercial quantity) and, therefore, the bar under Section 37 of the NDPS, 1985 is oncerns about the possibility of the petitioner fleeing from the trial proceedings, learned State counsel submits that petitioner ought not be granted the concession of regular bail. Learned agency while the petitioner has no involvement whatsoever in the alleged incident. Furthermore, there is no material on record to connect the petitioner with the alleged recovery and the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the instant case. According to learned counsel, the misuse of the procedural safeguards and reliance on inadmissible evidence highlights the action of the prosecution and warranting interference by this Court to release the petitioner from unjustified detention. It has been further submitted that the alleged recovery was not made from e allegations outlined in the FIR, it is contended that no case is made against the petitioner, and the prosecution’s narrative appears to be an attempt to falsely implicate the petitioner. The learned counsel further maintains that the entire prosecution case relies on the testimony of official witnesses, raising doubts about the Since the challan has already been filed before the competent Court of jurisdiction and hence no useful purpose g the petitioner in custody. In this view of the learned State counsel has strenuously opposed the instant petition by arguing that the allegations against the petitioner are rious in nature. Learned State counsel has further submitted that the FIR in (commercial quantity) and, therefore, the bar under Section 37 of the NDPS, 1985 is oncerns about the possibility of the petitioner fleeing from the trial proceedings, learned State counsel submits that petitioner ought not be granted the concession of regular bail. Learned AJAY KUMAR 2025.07.07 18:31 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M- State counsel has filed the custody certificate dated relied upon the involvement of the petitioner in 01 other case under 279, 336, 186, 353, 120 has, accordingly, sought for dismissal of the petition in hand. 5. perused the available record. 6. would be germane to refer herein to a judgment passed by this Court in Anshul Sardana vs. State of Punjab: 2025:PHHC:004198 whereof reads as under: -33052-2025 State counsel has filed the custody certificate dated relied upon the involvement of the petitioner in 01 other case under 279, 336, 186, 353, 120-B IPC and Section 61 has, accordingly, sought for dismissal of the petition in hand. I have heard learned counse perused the available record. Before delving further into the merits of the present matter, it would be germane to refer herein to a judgment passed by this Court in Anshul Sardana vs. State of Punjab: 2025:PHHC:004198 whereof reads as under: “6. At this juncture, it would be apposite to refer herein to a judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court titled as State of Tamil Nadu, AIR 2020 Supreme Court 5592’ reads as under: “155. We answer the reference by stating: (i) That the officers who are invested with powers under section 53 of the NDPS Act are "police officers within the meaning of section 25 of the Evidence Act, as a result of which any confessional statement made to them would be barred under the provisions of section 25 of the Evidence Act, and cannot be taken into account in order to convict an accused under the NDPS Act (ii) That a statement recorded under section 67 of the NDPS Act cannot be used as a c of an offence under the NDPS ACL" More recently, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in a judgment titled as ‘Smt. Najmunisha, Abdul Hamid Chandmiya @ Ladoo Bapu Vs. State of Gujrat, Narcotics Control Bureau’ 2024 INSC 290’ ratio decidendi of the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Tofan Singh (supra). 6.1 Further, the Hon’ble Supreme Court; while dealing with a plea for bail in a case under NDPS Act, 1985; in a judgment titled as ‘ (NCB) Bengaluru vs. Pallulabid Ahmad Arimutta & Anr.’, 2022(1) RCR (Criminal) 762, has held as under: 3 State counsel has filed the custody certificate dated 04.07.2025 and has relied upon the involvement of the petitioner in 01 other case under Sections B IPC and Section 61-1-14 of the Excise Act. He has, accordingly, sought for dismissal of the petition in hand. I have heard learned counsel for the rival parties and have Before delving further into the merits of the present matter, it would be germane to refer herein to a judgment passed by this Court in Anshul Sardana vs. State of Punjab: 2025:PHHC:004198, relevant At this juncture, it would be apposite to refer herein to a judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court titled as ‘Tofan Singh vs. State of Tamil Nadu, AIR 2020 Supreme Court 5592’, relevant whereof “155. We answer the reference by stating: (i) That the officers who are invested with powers under section 53 of the NDPS Act are "police officers within the meaning of section 25 of the Evidence Act, as a result of which any made to them would be barred under the provisions of section 25 of the Evidence Act, and cannot be taken into account in order to convict an accused under the NDPS Act (ii) That a statement recorded under section 67 of the NDPS Act cannot be used as a confessional statement in the trial of an offence under the NDPS ACL" More recently, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in a judgment titled as Smt. Najmunisha, Abdul Hamid Chandmiya @ Ladoo Bapu Vs. State of Gujrat, Narcotics Control Bureau’ 2024 INSC 290’, has reiterated the ratio decidendi of the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Further, the Hon’ble Supreme Court; while dealing with a plea for bail in a case under NDPS Act, 1985; in a judgment titled as ‘State by (NCB) Bengaluru vs. Pallulabid Ahmad Arimutta & Anr.’, 2022(1) RCR has held as under:- and has Sections . He l for the rival parties and have Before delving further into the merits of the present matter, it would be germane to refer herein to a judgment passed by this Court in relevant At this juncture, it would be apposite to refer herein to a ‘Tofan Singh vs. , relevant whereof (i) That the officers who are invested with powers under section 53 of the NDPS Act are "police officers within the meaning of section 25 of the Evidence Act, as a result of which any made to them would be barred under the provisions of section 25 of the Evidence Act, and cannot be taken into account in order to convict an accused under the NDPS Act (ii) That a statement recorded under section 67 of the onfessional statement in the trial More recently, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in a judgment titled as Smt. Najmunisha, Abdul Hamid Chandmiya @ Ladoo Bapu Vs. State of reiterated the ratio decidendi of the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Further, the Hon’ble Supreme Court; while dealing with a plea for State by (NCB) Bengaluru vs. Pallulabid Ahmad Arimutta & Anr.’, 2022(1) RCR AJAY KUMAR 2025.07.07 18:31 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M- -33052-2025 “9. Having gone through the records alongwith the tabuluted statement of the respondents submitted on behalf of the petitioner and on carefully perusing the impugned orders passed in each case, it emerges that except for the voluntary statements of A case and that of the respondents themselves recorded under Section 67 of the NDPS Act, it appears, prima facie, that no substant available with the prosecution at the time of arrest to connect the respondents with the allegations levelled against them of indulging in drug trafficking. It has not been denied by the prosecution that except for the respondent in SLP (Crl.) No. 1569/2021, none of the other respondents were found to be in possession of commercial quantities of psychotropic substances, as contemplated under the NDPS Act 10. It has been held in clear terms in Tofan Singh Vs. State of Tamil Nadu, (2021) 4 SCC 1, that a confessional statement recorded under Section 67 of the NDPS Act will remain inadmissible in the trial of un offence under the NDPS Act. In the teeth of the aforesaid decision, the arresis made by the petitioner confession/voluntary statements of the respondents or the co under Section 67 of the NDPS Act, cannot form the basis for overturning the impugned orders releasing them on bail. The CDR details of some of the accused or the allegations of tampering of of the respondents is an aspect that will be examined at the stage of trial. For the aforesaid reason, this Court is not inclined to interfere in the orders dated 16th September, 2019, 14th January, 2020, 16th January, 2020, 19th December, 2019 and 20th January, 2020 passed in SLP (Crl.) No Diary No. 22702/2020, SLP (Crl.) No. 1454/2021, SLP (Crl.) No. 1465/2021, SLP (Crl.) No. 1773- respectively. The impugned orders are, accordingly, upheld an Special Leave Petitions filed by the petitioner bail granted to the respective respondents, are dismissed as meritless.” 6.2 Still further, the Hon'ble Supreme Court; while dealing with a plea for grant of bail in a case under NDPS Act, 1985; in a judgment titled as ‘Vijay Singh vs. The State of Haryana, bearing Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No.(s) 1266/2023 decided on 17.05.2023’, has held as under: “The petitioner is alleged to have committed offences under Sections 15 and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter called the NDPS Act". His application for anticipatory bail was rejected by the High Court. The allegations in the FIR are that 1.7 Kg of Poppy Straw (Doda Post) was recove 4 “9. Having gone through the records alongwith the tabuluted statement of the respondents submitted on behalf of the petitioner-NCB rusing the impugned orders passed in each case, it emerges that except for the voluntary statements of A-1 and A-2 in the first case and that of the respondents themselves recorded under Section 67 of the NDPS Act, it appears, prima facie, that no substantial material was available with the prosecution at the time of arrest to connect the respondents with the allegations levelled against them of indulging in drug trafficking. It has not been denied by the prosecution that except for the rl.) No. 1569/2021, none of the other respondents were found to be in possession of commercial quantities of psychotropic substances, as contemplated under the NDPS Act It has been held in clear terms in Tofan Singh Vs. State of 4 SCC 1, that a confessional statement recorded under Section 67 of the NDPS Act will remain inadmissible in the trial of un offence under the NDPS Act. In the teeth of the aforesaid decision, the arresis made by the petitioner-NCB, on the basis of the fession/voluntary statements of the respondents or the co-accused under Section 67 of the NDPS Act, cannot form the basis for overturning the impugned orders releasing them on bail. The CDR details of some of the accused or the allegations of tampering of evidence on the part of one of the respondents is an aspect that will be examined at the stage of trial. For the aforesaid reason, this Court is not inclined to interfere in the orders dated 16th September, 2019, 14th January, 2020, 16th January, h December, 2019 and 20th January, 2020 passed in SLP (Crl.) No Diary No. 22702/2020, SLP (Crl.) No. 1454/2021, SLP (Crl.) No. -74/2021 and SLP (Crl.) No. 2080/2021 respectively. The impugned orders are, accordingly, upheld and the Special Leave Petitions filed by the petitioner-NCB seeking cancellation of bail granted to the respective respondents, are dismissed as meritless.” Still further, the Hon'ble Supreme Court; while dealing with a plea under NDPS Act, 1985; in a judgment titled as ‘Vijay Singh vs. The State of Haryana, bearing Special Leave to Appeal decided on 17.05.2023’, has held as under: “The petitioner is alleged to have committed offences under 15 and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter called the NDPS Act". His application for anticipatory bail was rejected by the High Court. The allegations in the FIR are that 1.7 Kg of Poppy Straw (Doda Post) was recovered from the “9. Having gone through the records alongwith the tabuluted NCB rusing the impugned orders passed in each case, it 2 in the first case and that of the respondents themselves recorded under Section 67 of ial material was available with the prosecution at the time of arrest to connect the respondents with the allegations levelled against them of indulging in drug trafficking. It has not been denied by the prosecution that except for the rl.) No. 1569/2021, none of the other respondents were found to be in possession of commercial quantities of psychotropic It has been held in clear terms in Tofan Singh Vs. State of 4 SCC 1, that a confessional statement recorded under Section 67 of the NDPS Act will remain inadmissible in the trial of un offence under the NDPS Act. In the teeth of the aforesaid decision, the NCB, on the basis of the accused under Section 67 of the NDPS Act, cannot form the basis for overturning the impugned orders releasing them on bail. The CDR details of some of evidence on the part of one of the respondents is an aspect that will be examined at the stage of trial. For the aforesaid reason, this Court is not inclined to interfere in the orders dated 16th September, 2019, 14th January, 2020, 16th January, h December, 2019 and 20th January, 2020 passed in SLP (Crl.) No Diary No. 22702/2020, SLP (Crl.) No. 1454/2021, SLP (Crl.) No. 74/2021 and SLP (Crl.) No. 2080/2021 d the NCB seeking cancellation of bail granted to the respective respondents, are dismissed as meritless.” Still further, the Hon'ble Supreme Court; while dealing with a plea under NDPS Act, 1985; in a judgment titled as ‘Vijay Singh vs. The State of Haryana, bearing Special Leave to Appeal “The petitioner is alleged to have committed offences under 15 and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter called the NDPS Act". His application for anticipatory bail was rejected by the High Court. The allegations in the red from the AJAY KUMAR 2025.07.07 18:31 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M- 7. question solely on the basis of the disclosure statement of a co is alleged to the ambit of commercial quantity -33052-2025 co-accused. The petitioner concededly was not present at the spot but was named by the co-accused. That apart there is no other material to implicate the petitioner. The prosecution urges that another case with allegations of commission of off against the petitioner. It is not denied that in those proceedings he was granted bail. Having regard to these circumstances, the petitioner is directed to the enlarged on anticipatory bail, subject to such terms and the trial Court may impose. The petition is allowed. All pending applications are disposed of." 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 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-accused. However, as regular bail pertains to life and liberty of individual, Courts are obligated to strike a bal 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 within the domain of the trial Court 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 process of law is not misused, abused or misdirected. The petitioner has been implicated as an accused in the FIR in question solely on the basis of the disclosure statement of a co is alleged to be in possession of 35 kgs 350 grams of ganja the ambit of commercial quantity. Subsequently, on 5 accused. The petitioner concededly was not present at the spot but was accused. That apart there is no other material to implicate the petitioner. The prosecution urges that another case with allegations of commission of offence under the NDPS Act are pending against the petitioner. It is not denied that in those proceedings he was Having regard to these circumstances, the petitioner is directed to the enlarged on anticipatory bail, subject to such terms and conditions as All pending applications are disposed of." It is a well established principle of law that a confession made by a 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, om the possession of the petitioner, who has been subsequently implicated as an accused solely on the basis of 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 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 igned 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.” has been implicated as an accused in the FIR in question solely on the basis of the disclosure statement of a co-accused, who session of 35 kgs 350 grams of ganja which falls under Subsequently, on 15.01.2025, the accused. The petitioner concededly was not present at the spot but was accused. That apart there is no other material to implicate the petitioner. The prosecution urges that another case with ence under the NDPS Act are pending against the petitioner. It is not denied that in those proceedings he was Having regard to these circumstances, the petitioner is directed to conditions as It is a well established principle of law that a confession made by a 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, om the possession of the petitioner, who has been subsequently implicated as an accused solely on the basis of accused. However, as regular bail pertains ance between safeguarding personal liberty and ensuring the effective administration of justice as also investigation. The final evidentiary value accused fall 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 igned 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 is essential to ensure that the has been implicated as an accused in the FIR in accused, who falls under , the AJAY KUMAR 2025.07.07 18:31 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M- petitioner was apprehended during the course of further investigation. the prosecution version, there is no other material ava petitioner with the contraband in question. 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. petitioner was not present at the spot. The veracity and weightage required to be attached to the discl tested at the time of trial. However, the same cannot be construed as sufficient by itself to decline the concession of 8. investigation was carried out and challan stands presented on Charges in the trial in question were framed and total witnesses have been cited, out of which appears that the trial is culmination in near future. The rival contention of learned counsel for the parties; as to whether the petitioner has been falsely implicated into the FIR in question on the basis of disclosure statem weightage/veracity of the evidence brought by the prosecution alongwith challan (final report); are issues of contentious nature which are essentially required to 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 -33052-2025 petitioner was apprehended during the course of further investigation. the prosecution version, there is no other material ava petitioner with the contraband in question. 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. petitioner was not present at the spot. The veracity and weightage required to be attached to the disclosure statement made by the co tested at the time of trial. However, the same cannot be construed as sufficient by itself to decline the concession of The petitioner was arrested on investigation was carried out and challan stands presented on Charges in the trial in question were framed and total witnesses have been cited, out of which n appears that the trial is procrastination & there appears to be no chance of its culmination in near future. The rival contention of learned counsel for the parties; as to whether the petitioner has been falsely implicated into the FIR in question on the basis of disclosure statem weightage/veracity of the evidence brought by the prosecution alongwith challan (final report); are issues of contentious nature which are essentially required to be ratiocinated upon during the course of trial. This Court does deem it appropriate to delve deep into these rival contentions, at this stage, lest it may prejudice the trial. Nothing tangible has been brought 6 petitioner was apprehended during the course of further investigation. As per the prosecution version, there is no other material available to connect the petitioner with the contraband in question. 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. 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 osure statement made by the co-accused will be fully tested at the time of trial. However, the same cannot be construed as sufficient by itself to decline the concession of regular bail to the petitioner The petitioner was arrested on 15.01.2025 whereinafter investigation was carried out and challan stands presented on 30.04.2025 Charges in the trial in question were framed and total 19 prosecution none has been examined till date. It procrastination & there appears to be no chance of its culmination in near future. The rival contention of learned counsel for the parties; as to whether the petitioner has been falsely implicated into the FIR in question on the basis of disclosure statement of co-accused & the weightage/veracity of the evidence brought by the prosecution alongwith challan (final report); are issues of contentious nature which are essentially required to be ratiocinated upon during the course of trial. This Court does deem it appropriate to delve deep into these rival contentions, at this stage, lest it may prejudice the trial. Nothing tangible has been brought As per ilable to connect the 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. The reliance on this unsubstantiated statement raises serious doubts about the It is not in dispute that the petitioner was not present at the spot. The veracity and weightage required to accused will be fully tested at the time of trial. However, the same cannot be construed as bail to the petitioner. einafter 30.04.2025. prosecution till date. It procrastination & there appears to be no chance of its culmination in near future. The rival contention of learned counsel for the parties; as to whether the petitioner has been falsely implicated into the FIR accused & the weightage/veracity of the evidence brought by the prosecution alongwith challan (final report); are issues of contentious nature which are essentially required to be ratiocinated upon during the course of trial. This Court does deem it appropriate to delve deep into these rival contentions, at this stage, lest it may prejudice the trial. Nothing tangible has been brought AJAY KUMAR 2025.07.07 18:31 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M- forward to indicate the likelihood of the petitioner absconding from the process of justice or interfering w Sections 279, 336, 186, 353, 120 Act but, in the considered opinion of this Court, the factum of petitioner being involv itself, to decline the concession of in question especially when the petitioner has been able to make out a case for grant of this regard can be placed upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Muulana Mohd. Amir Rashadi vs. State of U.P. and another, 2012(1) RCR(Criminal) 586; High Court in case of judgments of this Court in State of Haryana, 1998(3) RCR (Criminal) 191. is not warranted in the facts and circumstances of the case. 9. ordered to be released on regular bail on his furnishing bail/su 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: -33052-2025 forward to indicate the likelihood of the petitioner absconding from the process of justice or interfering with the prosecution evidence. The petitioner is stated to be involved in Sections 279, 336, 186, 353, 120-B IPC and Section 61 but, in the considered opinion of this Court, the factum of petitioner being involved in other criminal case would not be a reason, sufficient by itself, to decline the concession of regular in question especially when the petitioner has been able to make out a case for grant of regular bail in the FIR in question on merits thereof this regard can be placed upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court Muulana Mohd. Amir Rashadi vs. State of U.P. and another, 2012(1) RCR(Criminal) 586; a Division Bench judgment of the Hon’ble Calcutta gh Court in case of Sridhar Das vs. State, 1998(2) RCR(Criminal) 477 judgments of this Court in CRM-M-38822 State of Haryana, decided on 29.11.2021 and 1998(3) 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/su 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:- (i) The petitioner shall not mis 7 forward to indicate the likelihood of the petitioner absconding from the ith the prosecution evidence. The petitioner is stated to be involved in one other case under B IPC and Section 61-1-14 of the Excise but, in the considered opinion of this Court, the factum of petitioner ed in other criminal case would not be a reason, sufficient by regular bail to the petitioner qua the FIR in question especially when the petitioner has been able to make out a case in question on merits thereof. Reliance in this regard can be placed upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court Muulana Mohd. Amir Rashadi vs. State of U.P. and another, 2012(1) a Division Bench judgment of the Hon’ble Calcutta Sridhar Das vs. State, 1998(2) RCR(Criminal) 477 38822-2022 titled as Akhilesh Singh vs. decided on 29.11.2021 and Balraj vs. State of Haryana, o 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 concerned trial Court/Duty Magistrate, the petitioner shall remain bound by the following The petitioner shall not mis-use the liberty granted. forward to indicate the likelihood of the petitioner absconding from the other case under 14 of the Excise but, in the considered opinion of this Court, the factum of petitioner ed in other criminal case would not be a reason, sufficient by bail to the petitioner qua the FIR in question especially when the petitioner has been able to make out a case Reliance in this regard can be placed upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court Muulana Mohd. Amir Rashadi vs. State of U.P. and another, 2012(1) a Division Bench judgment of the Hon’ble Calcutta Sridhar Das vs. State, 1998(2) RCR(Criminal) 477 & Akhilesh Singh vs. Balraj vs. State of Haryana, o say, further detention of the petitioner as an undertrial In view of above, the present petition is allowed. Petitioner is rety 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 use the liberty granted. AJAY KUMAR 2025.07.07 18:31 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M- 10. which may be impos hereinabove or upon showing any other sufficient cause, the State shall be at liberty to move cancellation of bail of the petitioner. 11. 12. opinion on the merits of the case. 13. application, if any, shall also stands disposed off. July 07, 202 Ajay -33052-2025 (ii) The petitioner shall not tamper with any evidence, 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, the trial Court. (vi) The petitioner shall give his cellphone number to the Investigating Officer/SHO of concerned Police Station and shall n without prior permission of the trial Court/Illaqa Magistrate. (vii) The petitioner shall not in any manner try to delay the trial. 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 shall be at liberty to move cancellation of bail of the petitioner. Ordered accordingly. Nothing said hereinabove shall b 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 Whether speaking/reasoned: Whether reportable: 8 The petitioner shall not tamper with any evidence, oral or documentary, during the trial. The petitioner shall not absent himself on any date shall not commit any offence while The petitioner shall deposit his passport, if any, with 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 The petitioner shall not in any manner try to delay In case of breach of any of the aforesaid conditions and those ed by concerned trial Court/Duty Magistrate as directed hereinabove or upon showing any other sufficient cause, the State shall be at liberty to 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) JUDGE Yes/No Yes/No oral The petitioner shall not absent himself on any date shall not commit any offence while with The petitioner shall give his cellphone number to the Investigating Officer/SHO of concerned Police phone number without prior permission of the trial Court/Illaqa The petitioner shall not in any manner try to delay In case of breach of any of the aforesaid conditions and those ed by concerned trial Court/Duty Magistrate as directed hereinabove or upon showing any other sufficient cause, the State shall be at e construed as an expression of Since the main case has been decided, pending miscellaneous AJAY KUMAR 2025.07.07 18:31 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document