284 CRM-M-37678-2025 Date of Decision: August 18, 2025 Ram Singh …Pe##oner Versus State of Hayana …Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK GUPTA Present:- Mr. Amit, Advocate for Mr. S.D. Bishnoi, Advocate for the peoner. Mr. Vikas Bhardwaj, AAG, Haryana. DEEPAK GUPTA , J.(Oral) On 17.07.2025, the following order was passed by this Court:- “Instant peon is preferred under Secon 482 of the Bharaya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short ‘BNSS’) seeking ancipatory bail in FIR No.131 dated 04.06.2025 under Secons 15(a) & 27-A of the Narcoc Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, registered at Police Staon City Raa, District Fatehabad. Learned counsel for the peoner, inter alia, contends that admi>edly, 508 grams of poppy husk has been recovered from the conscious possession of co-accused Balram @ Balla. The peoner is neither named in the FIR (supra) nor any contraband has been recovered from his possession and he has been nominated as accused merely on the basis of disclosure statement made by abovenamed co-accused during his custodial interrogaon, which has no evidenary value in the eyes of law, as the same would be hit by Secons 25 & 26 of Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (now Secons 23(1) & 23(2) of Bharaya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023). Further, the alleged contraband recovered in the present case falls within the ambit of small quanty, for which maximum sentence is upto 01 year. Noce of moon. Ms. Geeta Sharma, DAG, Haryana, who is present in the Court, accepts noce on behalf of the respondent-State and submits that the peoner is involved in one more case. However, she could not controvert the fact that the alleged contraband has been recovered from the conscious possession of co-accused falling within the ambit of small quanty. Sarita Rani 2025.08.18 18:26 I attest to the accuracy of this document/order CRM-M-37678-2025 - 2 - 2025:PHHC:106361 Adjourned to 18.08.2025. Keeping in view the rao of law enunciated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Arnesh Kumar Vs. State of Bihar, (2014) 8 SCC 273, Arnab Manoranjan Goswami Vs. State of Maharashtra, (2021) 2 SCC 427, Satender Kumar An%l Vs. CBI, (2022) 10 SCC 51, Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre Vs. State of Maharashtra and ors., 2010 SCC OnLine SC 1375 and Shri Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia Vs. State of Punjab, (1980) 2 SCC 565, the peoner is directed to appear before Invesgang Officer within a period of two weeks from today and thereaFer, as directed by the Invesgang Officer. In the event of arrest, the peoner will be admi>ed to interim ancipatory bail on furnishing bail/surety bonds to the sasfacon of Invesgang/Arresng Officer. The peoner shall cooperate with the invesgaon/Arresng Officer and abide by the condions as provided under Secon 482(2) of BNSS (erstwhile Secon 438(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973). If the Arresng Officer does not permit the peoner to join the invesgaon, he would appear before learned Illaqa Magistrate, who would then summon the Arresng Officer and direct him to join the peoner in the invesgaon, in terms of the order of this Court. Nothing observed hereinabove shall be construed as an expression of opinion by this Court and learned trial Court shall decide the case on its own merits, strictly in accordance with law.” 2. Today, on instrucons from ASI Harpal Singh, learned State counsel has informed this Court that the peoner has joined the invesgaon, in compliance of the order dated 17.07.2025 and is no longer required for further invesgaon. 3. In view of the aforesaid, the order dated 17.07.2025, whereby the peoner was granted interim ancipatory bail, is hereby made absolute. However, he shall connue to join invesgaon, if and so required by the Invesgang Officer. Disposed of. August 18, 2025 (DEEPAK GUPTA) sarita JUDGE Whether reasoned/speaking: Yes/No Whether reportable: Yes/No Sarita Rani 2025.08.18 18:26 I attest to the accuracy of this document/order