CRM-M-37827- 238 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA Sarabjeet Kaur @ Sabbi @ Sarbjeet Kaur State of Punjab CORAM: Present:- SUMEET GOEL 1. Bhartiya 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 FIR grams of Tramadol 3. is in custody since -2025 (O&M) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA CHANDIGARH CRM- Date of decision: Sarabjeet Kaur @ Sabbi @ Sarbjeet Kaur versus Punjab HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL Mr. Malkiat S. Hundal, Advocate (presence marked through video Mr. Jasjit Singh, DAG Punjab. ***** SUMEET GOEL, J. (ORAL) Present petition has been filed under Section Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short ‘BNSS’) regular bail to the petitioner in case bearing FIR No registered for the offences punishable under Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances at Police Station Goindwal Sahib, Tarn Taran. The gravamen of the FIR in question is that the petitioner accused of being involved in FIR pertaining to NDPS Act involving 296.37 Tramadol. Learned counsel for the petitioner has is in custody since 23.04.2025. Learned counsel for the petitioner has 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH -M-37827-2025 (O&M) Date of decision: July 23, 2025 ….Petitioner ….Respondent HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL Advocate for the petitioner presence marked through video-conferencing). Present petition has been filed under Section 483 of the (for short ‘BNSS’) for grant of regular bail to the petitioner in case bearing FIR No.115 dated 08.03.2025, ences punishable under Section 22/29/61/85 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short ‘NDPS Goindwal Sahib, Tarn Taran. of the FIR in question is that the petitioner is pertaining to NDPS Act involving 296.37 Learned counsel for the petitioner has iterated that the petitioner Learned counsel for the petitioner has further 1 Petitioner ….Respondent 483 of the for grant of , of the (for short ‘NDPS is pertaining to NDPS Act involving 296.37 that the petitioner further MAHAVIR SINGH 2025.07.24 09:45 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/ judgment CRM-M-37827- iterated that question solely on the basis of disclosure statement Angrej Singh @ Ghacho and Vikramjit Singh @ Vicky. 4. arguing that the allegations raised and, thus, he State counsel has further submitted that by the Section 37 of the NDPS prayed for. certificate dated 5. the available records of the case. 6. custody since then. the disclosure statements of and Vikramjit Singh @ Vicky to the judgment passed by this Court in Sardana versus no.2025:PHHC: -2025 (O&M) iterated that the petitioner has been falsely question solely on the basis of disclosure statement Angrej Singh @ Ghacho and Vikramjit Singh @ Vicky. Learned State counsel has opposed the present petition at the allegations raised against the petitioner he does not deserve the concession of the regular bail State counsel has further submitted that the instant bail plea is Section 37 of the NDPS Act; thus, dismissal of the instant petition is Learned State counsel seeks to place on record custody certificate dated 22.07.2025 in Court, which is taken on record. I have heard counsel for the rival ailable records of the case. The petitioner was arrested on 23.04.2025 custody since then. The prime evidence against the the disclosure statements of co-accused, namely, Angrej Singh @ Ghacho Vikramjit Singh @ Vicky. At this juncture, it would be apposite to refer to the judgment passed by this Court in CRM versus State of Punjab, decided on no.2025:PHHC:004198), relevant part thereof reads thus: “6. 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 reads as “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 2 petitioner has been falsely implicated into the FIR in question solely on the basis of disclosure statements of co-accused, namely, Angrej Singh @ Ghacho and Vikramjit Singh @ Vicky. Learned State counsel has opposed the present petition by against the petitioner are serious in nature does not deserve the concession of the regular bail. Learned the instant bail plea is adversely hit dismissal of the instant petition is Learned State counsel seeks to place on record custody .07.2025 in Court, which is taken on record. rival parties and have gone through 23.04.2025 and is in continuous The prime evidence against the petitioner, at this stage, is accused, namely, Angrej Singh @ Ghacho At this juncture, it would be apposite to refer CRM-M-65094-2024 titled Anshul decided on 14.01.2025 (neutral citation ), relevant part thereof reads thus:- At this juncture, it would be apposite to refer judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court State of Tamil Nadu, AIR 2020 , relevant whereof reads as under: 155. We answer the reference by stating: That the officers who are invested with powers under section 53 of the NDPS Act police officers within the meaning of 2 implicated into the FIR in , by are serious in nature Learned adversely hit dismissal of the instant petition is Learned State counsel seeks to place on record custody parties and have gone through continuous petitioner, at this stage, is accused, namely, Angrej Singh @ Ghacho At this juncture, it would be apposite to refer Anshul (neutral citation At this juncture, it would be apposite to refer judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court State of Tamil Nadu, AIR 2020 That the officers who are invested with powers under section 53 of the NDPS Act police officers within the meaning of MAHAVIR SINGH 2025.07.24 09:45 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/ judgment CRM-M-37827- -2025 (O&M) section 25 of the Evidence Act, as a result of which any confessional statement 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 (ii) That a statement recorded under section 67 of the NDPS Act cannot be used as a 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 reiterated the 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 vs. Pallulabid Ahmad Arimutta & Anr.', 2022(1) RCR (Criminal) 762, has held as under: “9. Having gone through the records alongwith the tabuluted statement of the respondents submitted on behalf of the petitioner-NCB and on carefully perus the impugned orders passed in each case, it emerges that except for the voluntary statements of A 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 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 3 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 confessional statement in the trial of an offence under the NDPS More recently, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in a Smt. Najmunisha, Abdul Hamid Chandmiya @ Ladoo Bapu Vs. State of Gujrat, Narcotics Control Bureau' 2024 INSC 290’, has ratio decidendi of the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Tofan Singh (supra). Further, the Hon'ble Supreme Court; while 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:- . Having gone through the records alongwith the tabuluted statement of the respondents submitted on behalf of the NCB and on carefully perusing 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 respondent in ) No. 1569/2021, none of the other respondents were found to be in possession of commercial quantities of psychotropic substances, as contemplated under the 3 section 25 of the Evidence Act, as a result of 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 (ii) That a statement recorded under section 67 of the NDPS Act confessional statement in the trial of an offence under the NDPS More recently, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in a Smt. Najmunisha, Abdul Hamid Chandmiya @ Ladoo Bapu Vs. State of Gujrat, , has ratio decidendi of the judgment of Hon'ble Further, the Hon'ble Supreme Court; while for bail in a case under NDPS Act, (NCB) Bengaluru vs. Pallulabid Ahmad Arimutta & Anr.', 2022(1) RCR . Having gone through the records alongwith the tabuluted statement of the respondents submitted on behalf of the ing the impugned orders passed in each case, it emerges that except for the voluntary 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 respondent in ) No. 1569/2021, none of the other respondents were found to be in possession of commercial quantities of psychotropic substances, as contemplated under the MAHAVIR SINGH 2025.07.24 09:45 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/ judgment CRM-M-37827- -2025 (O&M) 10. in Tofan Singh Vs. State of Tamil Nadu, (2021) 4 SCC 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 basis of the confessi of the respondents or the co 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 evide 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 Dec 20th January, 2020 passed in SLP (Crl.) No Diary No. 22702/2020, SLP (Cri.) No. 1454/2021, SLP (Crl.) No. 1465/2021, SLP (Crl.) No. 1773 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." 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 17.05.2023', has held as under: “The petitioner is alleged to have committed offences under Sections 15 and 2 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 4 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-NCB, on the basis of the confession/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, 2020, 19th December, 2019 and 20th January, 2020 passed in SLP (Crl.) No Diary No. 22702/2020, SLP (Cri.) No. 1454/2021, SLP (Crl.) No. 1465/2021, SLP (Crl.) No. 1773-74/2021 and SLP (Crl.) No. 2080/2021 respectively. The impugned orders are, accordingly, upheld and the Special Leave Petitions filed by the NCB seeking cancellation of bail granted to the respective respondents, are dismissed as meritless." Still further, the Hon'ble Supreme Court; plea for grant of bail in a case 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 4 It has been held in clear terms in Tofan Singh Vs. State of Tamil Nadu, 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 on/voluntary statements 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 nce 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 ember, 2019 and 20th January, 2020 passed in SLP (Crl.) No Diary No. 22702/2020, SLP (Cri.) No. 1454/2021, SLP (Crl.) No. 1465/2021, SLP 74/2021 and SLP (Crl.) No. 2080/2021 respectively. The impugned orders are, accordingly, upheld and the Special Leave Petitions filed by the NCB seeking cancellation of bail granted to the respective respondents, are Still further, the Hon'ble Supreme Court; plea for grant of bail in a case NDPS Act, 1985; in a judgment titled as Vijay Singh vs. The State of Haryana, bearing Special decided on The petitioner is alleged to have committed offences under 9 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 MAHAVIR SINGH 2025.07.24 09:45 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/ judgment CRM-M-37827- -2025 (O&M) (Doda Post) was recovered from 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 prosecution urges that another case with allegations of commission of offence unde the NDPS Act are pending 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 conditions 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 the NDPS Act is inherently a very weak piece of evidence. Such statements), by themselves, cannot form the sole basis for the conviction of an individual and must be scrutinized with utmost with other substantive evidence. Moreover, no recovery has been effected from the possessio 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 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 which the petitioner has been arraigned or including the nature of the allegations, the linking the petitioner to the offence as well as role attributed to the petitioner in the alleged offence. A prima facie factors is essential to ensure that the misused, abused or misdirected. 5 (Doda Post) was recovered from the co- accused. The petitioner concededly was not present at the spot but was named by the co- accused. That apart there is no other 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 granted bail. Having regard to these circumstances, the petitioner is directed to the enlarged on anticipatory bail, subject to such terms and conditions as the trial Court The petition is allowed. All pending applications are disposed It is a well established principle of law that by a co-accused under Section 67 of the NDPS Act is inherently a very weak piece of evidence. Such statements), 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 eguarding 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 judicated during the course of the trial in accordance with established principles of law. However, 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 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 ensure that the process of law is not misused, abused or misdirected.” 5 - accused. The petitioner concededly was not - accused. That apart there is no other implicate the petitioner. The prosecution urges that another case with r the NDPS Act are pending against the petitioner. It is not denied that in those Having regard to these circumstances, the petitioner is directed to the enlarged on anticipatory bail, subject to as the trial Court All pending applications are disposed It is a well established principle of law that accused under Section 67 of the NDPS Act is inherently a very weak piece of evidence. Such statements), by themselves, cannot form the sole basis for the conviction of an individual and caution in conjunction with other substantive evidence. Moreover, no recovery n of the petitioner, who has been subsequently implicated as an accused - accused. However, as regular bail pertains to life and liberty of individual, Courts are obligated to strike a eguarding personal liberty and ensuring the effective administration of justice as also investigation. The final evidentiary value and - accused fall within the domain of the trial Court and are judicated during the course of the trial in accordance with established principles of law. However, a plea for regular bail, this Court circumstances under ted, evidence the specific commission of the examination of these process of law is not MAHAVIR SINGH 2025.07.24 09:45 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/ judgment CRM-M-37827- shall be ratiocinated upon during the course of trial. This Court does deem it appropriate to delve deep into lest it may prejudice the trial. Nothing tangible has been brought indicate the likelihood of the petitioner absconding from the justice or interfering with the prosecution evidence. certificate dated has already suffered incarceration for a period of more than 29 days. Further, as per the said custody certificate the petitioner is stated to be involved in 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 the FIR in question by ratiocinating upon FIR. Reliance in this regard can be placed upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in another, 2012 (1) RCR (Criminal) 586 Hon’ble Calcutta High Court in case of (Criminal) 477 as Akhilesh Singh v. State of Haryana v. State of Haryana, 1998 (3) RCR (Criminal) undertrial is not warranted in the facts -2025 (O&M) The rival contentions raised at Bar give rise to debatable issues shall be ratiocinated upon during the course of trial. This Court does deem it appropriate to delve deep into these rival contentions, at this lest it may prejudice the trial. Nothing tangible has been brought indicate the likelihood of the petitioner absconding from the justice or interfering with the prosecution evidence. certificate dated 22.07.2025 filed by the learned State counsel, the petitioner has already suffered incarceration for a period of more than Further, as per the said custody certificate the petitioner is stated to be involved in 03 more cases. 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 of regular bail 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 Rashadi v. State of U.P. and another, 2012 (1) RCR (Criminal) 586; a Division Bench judgment of the Calcutta High Court in case of Sridhar Das v. State, 1998 (2) RCR (Criminal) 477 & judgments of this Court in CRM Akhilesh Singh v. State of Haryana, decided on 29.11.2021, and v. State of Haryana, 1998 (3) RCR (Criminal) Suffice to say, further detention of the petitioner as an undertrial is not warranted in the facts and circumstances of the case. 6 The rival contentions raised at Bar give rise to debatable issues shall be ratiocinated upon during the course of trial. This Court does not 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. As per custody learned State counsel, the petitioner has already suffered incarceration for a period of more than 02 months and Further, as per the said custody certificate the petitioner is stated to 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 of regular bail qua the facts/circumstances of the said FIR. Reliance in this regard can be placed upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Maulana Mohd. Amir Rashadi v. State of U.P. and ; a Division Bench judgment of the Sridhar Das v. State, 1998 (2) RCR & judgments of this Court in CRM-M No.38822-2022 titled , decided on 29.11.2021, and Balraj v. State of Haryana, 1998 (3) RCR (Criminal) 191. Suffice to say, further detention of the petitioner as an and circumstances of the case. 6 The rival contentions raised at Bar give rise to debatable issues ot stage, forward to process of ody learned State counsel, the petitioner and Further, as per the said custody certificate the petitioner is stated to However, this factum cannot be a ground sufficient by itself, to decline the concession of regular bail to the petitioner qua the facts/circumstances of the said FIR. Reliance in this regard can be placed upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Maulana Mohd. Amir Rashadi v. State of U.P. and ; a Division Bench judgment of the Sridhar Das v. State, 1998 (2) RCR 2022 titled Balraj Suffice to say, further detention of the petitioner as an MAHAVIR SINGH 2025.07.24 09:45 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/ judgment CRM-M-37827- 7. ordered to be released on regular bail on his furnishing bail/surety bonds to the satisfaction of the Ld. concerned in addition to conditions that may be imposed by the Court/Duty Magistrate, the conditions:- 8. which may be imposed by concerned hereinabove or upon showing any other sufficient cause, the -2025 (O&M) 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 in addition to conditions that may be imposed by the /Duty Magistrate, the petitioner shall (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 the trial. (iv) The petitioner shall not commit any offence while on bail. (v) The petitioner shall deposit his passport, if any, with trial Court. (vi) The petitioner shall give his cellphone number to 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 trial. (viii) The petitioner shall submit, on every month, an affidavit, before the concerned Special Judge of NDPS Court, to the effect that he has not been involved in commission of any offence after being released on bail. In case 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 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 7 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 trial Court/Duty Magistrate. However, in addition to conditions that may be imposed by the concerned trial 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 Officer/SHO of concerned Police Station 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 Special Judge of NDPS 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 any offence after his being enlarged on bail , 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. In case of breach of any of the aforesaid conditions and those trial Court/Duty Magistrate as directed hereinabove or upon showing any other sufficient cause, the 7 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 Magistrate. However, trial remain bound by the following The petitioner shall not tamper with any evidence, oral or himself on any date before The petitioner shall not commit any offence while on the the Officer/SHO of concerned Police Station prior the the first working day of every month, an affidavit, before the concerned Special Judge of NDPS Court, to the effect that he has not been involved in commission of any offence after being the petitioner is found to be any offence after his being enlarged on bail , 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 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 MAHAVIR SINGH 2025.07.24 09:45 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/ judgment CRM-M-37827- State/complainant shall be at liberty to move cancellation of bail of the petitioner. 9. 10. opinion on the merits of the case. 11. application, if any, shall also stands disposed off. July 23, 2025 mahavir Whether speaking/reasoned: Whether reportable: -2025 (O&M) State/complainant shall be at liberty to move cancellation of bail of the 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 de application, if any, shall also stands disposed off. , 2025 Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No Whether reportable: Yes/No 8 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) JUDGE 8 State/complainant shall be at liberty to move cancellation of bail of the Nothing said hereinabove shall be construed as an expression of cided, pending miscellaneous MAHAVIR SINGH 2025.07.24 09:45 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/ judgment