CRM-M-66305-2025 (O&M)
1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 219 CRM-M-66305-2025 (O&M) Date of decision : 10.02.2026 Manju Devi ..... Petitioner VERSUS State of Haryana ..... Respondent CORAM: HON9BLE MR. JUSTICE SURYA PARTAP SINGH Present : Mr. Sukhcharan Singh Gill, Advocate for Mr. Tajinder Pal Singh Makkar, Advocate for the petitioner.
     ***** SURYA PARTAP SINGH, J. (oral) This is first petition for bail filed by the petitioner with regard to a case arising out of FIR No.199 dated 15.08.2025 under Section 18-C and 29 (added later on) of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, hereinafter being referred to as 8NDPS Act9 only, Police Station Dadri Sadar, District Charkhi Dadri. 2. The abovementioned FIR came into being at the instance of 8ASI Vishal9, who had reported that on the basis of a tip-off given by a reliable source he had intercepted a person, namely 8Abhishek9 and from his possession 1 kg & 36 grams of opium was recovered. According to prosecution once the abovementioned recovery took place, the co-accused 8Abhishek9 was formally arrested and during the course of investigation he suffered a disclosure statement disclosing therein that the petitioner had got VINOD KUMAR ARYA 2026.02.11 16:59 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-66305-2025 (O&M)
2 transferred Rs.1,10,000/- on her mobile phone from the mobile of Abhishek through PhonePe application being sale production of abovementioned ocontraband. 3. Notice of motion. 4.
       appears on behalf of respondent-State. Hence service of notice upon the State is hereby dispensed with. The learned State Counsel has filed custody certificate of the petitioner. The same be taken on record. No formal reply has been filed by the State and the learned State Counsel has opted to orally oppose the present petition. 5. Heard. 6. The record has been perused carefully. 7. To deal with given fact-situation, the principles of law laid down by the Hon9ble Supreme Court of India in the case of 8Vijay Singh Vs. The State of Haryana9 2023 SCC OnlineSC 1235 are relevant. In the abovementioned case, the petitioner was not present on the spot at the time of recovery and he was implicated solely on the basis of statement of co- accused. The Hon9ble Supreme Court of India in the abovementioned case afforded the benefit of bail to the accused. 8. Similarly, in the case of 8Surender Kumar Khanna Vs. Intelligence Officer Directorate of Revenue Intelligence9 2018(8) SCC 271, it has been held by the Hon9ble Supreme Court of India that the disclosure statement of co-accused is inadmissible against another accused, as the VINOD KUMAR ARYA 2026.02.11 16:59 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-66305-2025 (O&M)
3 disclosure statement is not a substantive piece of evidence against other accused. 9. Similar principle has been laid down by the Hon9ble Supreme Court of India in the case of 8Preet Kamal Vs. State of Punjab9, 2018(4) RCR (Criminal) 938, wherein it has been held that the disclosure statement of an accused can be used only against the person making the same, and not against the co-accused. 10. In 8Tofan Singh Vs. State of Tamil Nadu9, 2021(4) SCC 1 also, it has been observed by the Hon9ble Supreme Court of India that confessional statement of accused recorded under Section 67 of NDPS Act cannot be admitted in evidence, as a confession. 11. A perusal of record shows that in the present case, following are the relevant factors which are required to be taken into consideration for a decision:-                                 !   !        !     "  #      #                   $     %&     &                    &    &              !    '       " #  &                     #   #  !  #    VINOD KUMAR ARYA 2026.02.11 16:59 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-66305-2025 (O&M)
4    Since pursuant to above-mentioned disclosure statement no recovery or discovery of fact had taken place, the same is prima facie hit by Section-23 of Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam   "       &                ( ""          & #               #          #    )    & #        #!   *      12. To elucidate further, this Court is conscious of the basic and fundamental principle of law that right to speedy trial is a part of reasonable, fair and just procedure enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. This constitutional right cannot be denied to the accused as mandated by Hon9ble Apex court in <Balwinder Singh versus State of Punjab and Another=, 2024 SCC Online SC 4354. 13. If the cumulative effect of all the abovementioned factors, involved in the instant case, is taken into consideration, it leads to a conclusion that the petitioner is entitled for the benefit of bail, and that the present petition deserves to be allowed. 14. Accordingly, without commenting anything on the merits of the case, the present petition is hereby allowed. The petitioner is hereby ordered to be released on bail on furnishing personal bond and surety bond(s) to the VINOD KUMAR ARYA 2026.02.11 16:59 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-66305-2025 (O&M)
5 satisfaction of learned trial Court. However the abovementioned concession shall be subject to following conditions:- (i) that the petitioner shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case, so as to dissuade him to disclose such facts to the Court or to any other authority. (ii) that the petitioner shall at the time of execution of bond, furnish the address to the Court concerned and shall notify the change in address to the trial Court, till the final decision of the trial; and (iii) that the petitioner shall not leave India without prior permission of the trial Court. (SURYA PARTAP SINGH) JUDGE 10.02.2026 Vinod Whether speaking / reasoned Yes/No Whether Reportable Yes/No VINOD KUMAR ARYA 2026.02.11 16:59 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document