CRM-M-44687- 211 211 211 211 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 Raj Kumar State of Haryana CORAM: CORAM: CORAM: CORAM: Present: Present: Present: Present:- SUMEET GOEL SUMEET GOEL SUMEET GOEL SUMEET GOEL 1. Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short ‘BNSS’) the petitioner in case bearing FIR No offences punishable under Section Psychotropic Substances Shahbad, District Kurukshetra. 2. accused of being involved in FIR pertaining to NDPS Act inv grams of opium Arvind Arya. 3. in custody since submitted that the mandatory provisions of the NDPS Act have not scrupulously -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 Date of decision: Date of decision: Date of decision: Date of decision: versus Haryana HON’BLE HON’BLE HON’BLE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL Mr. Parminder Singh, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Deepak Kumar Grewal, DAG Haryana. ***** ***** ***** ***** SUMEET GOEL SUMEET GOEL SUMEET GOEL SUMEET GOEL, J. (ORAL) , J. (ORAL) , J. (ORAL) , J. (ORAL) Present petition has been filed under Section Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short ‘BNSS’) the petitioner in case bearing FIR No.368 dated ences punishable under Sections 18, 29, 27A Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short ‘NDPS Act’) Shahbad, District Kurukshetra. The gravamen of the FIR in question is that the petitioner is an accused of being involved in FIR pertaining to NDPS Act inv grams of opium allegedly recovered from co-accused of the petitioner, namely, Arvind Arya. Learned counsel for the petitioner has iterated that the petitioner is in custody since 16.06.2025 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 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 CHANDIGARH AT CHANDIGARH AT CHANDIGARH AT CHANDIGARH CRM CRM CRM CRM----M M M M----44687 44687 44687 44687----2025 2025 2025 2025 Date of decision: Date of decision: Date of decision: Date of decision: August 22 August 22 August 22 August 22,,,, 2025 2025 2025 2025 ….Petitioner ….Respondent MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL for the petitioner. DAG Haryana. Present petition has been filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short ‘BNSS’) for grant of regular bail to dated 11.06.2025, registered for the , 29, 27A of the Narcotic Drugs and (for short ‘NDPS Act’), at Police Station The gravamen of the FIR in question is that the petitioner is an accused of being involved in FIR pertaining to NDPS Act involving 03 kg 206 accused of the petitioner, namely, Learned counsel for the petitioner has iterated that the petitioner is 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 1 2025 2025 2025 2025 2025 2025 2025 2025 Petitioner ….Respondent of the Bharatiya for grant of regular bail to registered for the Narcotic Drugs and at Police Station The gravamen of the FIR in question is that the petitioner is an 03 kg 206 accused of the petitioner, namely, Learned counsel for the petitioner has iterated that the petitioner is 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 MAHAVIR SINGH 2025.08.22 16:32 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/ judgment CRM-M-44687- inherent defects. petitioner as an accused Arvind Arya. the role of being supplier of the contraband and he has been implicated primarily on the the petitioner has suffered incarceration for more than bail is prayed for. 4. 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 has further submitted that the instant bail plea is barred by the rigors of Section 37 of the NDPS Act, and thus, the same ought to be dismissed. Learned State counsel seeks to place on record custody certificate dated Court today, which is taken on record. 5. the available records of the case. 6. custody since then; culmination of the investigat therefrom, if occasion so arises, will take time implicated as an accused in the FIR in question solely on the basis of statement of co there is no other material available to connect the petitioner with the contraband except for the said disclosure statement. It is pertinent to note disclosure statements, in the absence of corroborative evidence -2025 inherent defects. Learned counsel has further iterated that s an accused is the disclosure statement of co . Learned counsel has iterated that the role of being supplier of the contraband and he has been implicated primarily on the account of disclosure. Learned counsel has further iterated that the petitioner has suffered incarceration for more than 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 regular bail. Learned State has further submitted that the instant bail plea is barred by the rigors of Section 37 of the NDPS Act, and thus, the same ought to be dismissed. Learned State counsel seeks to place on record custody certificate dated , 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 16 custody since then; culmination of the investigat therefrom, if occasion so arises, will take time implicated as an accused in the FIR in question solely on the basis of co-accused, namely Arvind Arya there is no other material available to connect the petitioner with the contraband except for the said disclosure statement. It is pertinent to note disclosure statements, in the absence of corroborative evidence 2 further iterated that sole basis to array the is the disclosure statement of co-accused, namely Learned counsel has iterated that the petitioner has been ascribed the role of being supplier of the contraband and he has been implicated Learned counsel has further iterated that the petitioner has suffered incarceration for more than 02 months. Thus, regular 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 has further submitted that the instant bail plea is barred by the rigors of Section 37 of the NDPS Act, and thus, the same ought to be dismissed. Learned State counsel seeks to place on record custody certificate dated 21.08.2025 in the I have heard counsel for the rival parties and have gone through 16.06.2025 and is in continuous custody since then; culmination of the investigation as also the trial emanating therefrom, if occasion so arises, will take time. The petitioner has been implicated as an accused in the FIR in question solely on the basis of disclosure accused, namely Arvind Arya. As per the prosecution version, there is no other material available to connect the petitioner with the contraband except for the said disclosure statement. It is pertinent to note that such disclosure statements, in the absence of corroborative evidence hold limited 2 asis to array the accused, namely the petitioner has been ascribed the role of being supplier of the contraband and he has been implicated Learned counsel has further iterated that us, regular Learned State counsel has opposed the present petition by arguing that the allegations raised against the petitioner are serious in nature and, thus, counsel has further submitted that the instant bail plea is barred by the rigors of Section 37 of the NDPS Act, and thus, the same ought to be dismissed. Learned State the I have heard counsel for the rival parties and have gone through and is in continuous ion as also the trial emanating has been disclosure . As per the prosecution version, there is no other material available to connect the petitioner with the contraband that such hold limited MAHAVIR SINGH 2025.08.22 16:32 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/ judgment CRM-M-44687- evidentiary value and cannot be sole basis for implicating the petitioner 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 tested at the time of trial. debatable issues shall be ratioci 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 petitione justice or interfering with the prosecution evidence. 6.1. by this Court in 65094 65094 65094 65094----2024 2024 2024 2024 decidendi of the judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in versus State of Tamil Nadu, AIR 2020 Supreme Court 5592; Abdul Hamid Chandmiya @ Ladoo Bapu Control Bureau, 2024 INSC 290; Ahmad Arimutta & Anr.’, 2022 (1) RCR (Criminal) 762; and The State of Haryana, bearing Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No.(s) 1266/2023, decided on 17.05.2023 -2025 evidentiary value and cannot be sole basis for implicating the petitioner reliance on this unsubstantiated statement raises serious doubts about the fairness and objectivity of the investigation. It is not in dispute that the 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. 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 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 (2025: PHHC:004198), wherein of the judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in versus State of Tamil Nadu, AIR 2020 Supreme Court 5592; 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 (Criminal) 762; and The State of Haryana, bearing Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No.(s) , decided on 17.05.2023, has held thus: “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 3 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 was not present at the spot. The veracity and weightage required to disclosure statement made by the co-accused will be fully The rival contentions raised at Bar give rise to nated 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 r absconding from the process of justice or interfering with the prosecution evidence. it would be apposite to refer to a judgment passed 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 CRM CRM CRM CRM----M M M M---- wherein, after relying upon the ratio of the judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Tofan Singh versus State of Tamil Nadu, AIR 2020 Supreme Court 5592; Smt. Najmunisha, versus State of Gujrat, Narcotics State by (NCB) Bengaluru vs. Pallulabid Ahmad Arimutta & Anr.’, 2022 (1) RCR (Criminal) 762; and Vijay Singh vs. The State of Haryana, bearing Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No.(s) has held thus: It is a well established principle of law that a confession accused under Section 67 of the NDPS Act is inherently a very weak piece of evidence. Such statement(s), by themselves, cannot e 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 3 . The reliance on this unsubstantiated statement raises serious doubts about the fairness and objectivity of the investigation. It is not in dispute that the was not present at the spot. The veracity and weightage required to accused will be fully The rival contentions raised at Bar give rise to nated 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 r absconding from the process of passed ---- ratio Tofan Singh Smt. Najmunisha, versus State of Gujrat, Narcotics State by (NCB) Bengaluru vs. Pallulabid Singh vs. The State of Haryana, bearing Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No.(s) It is a well established principle of law that a confession accused under Section 67 of the NDPS Act is inherently a very weak piece of evidence. Such statement(s), by themselves, cannot e 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 MAHAVIR SINGH 2025.08.22 16:32 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/ judgment CRM-M-44687- 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 has held thus: postulates emerge: -2025 the petitioner, who has been subsequently implicated on the basis of disclosure statement of the co 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 wi 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 is essential to ensure that the process of law is not misused, abused or 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 CRM CRM CRM CRM----M M M M----33729 33729 33729 33729 thus: “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 account of any 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 of India i.e. where the bail has suffered long under-trial custody, the trial is procras 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 stipula Section 37(1)(b)(i) of NDPS Act i.e. “ for believing that he is not guilty of such offence”: 4 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 inistration of justice as also investigation. The final evidentiary value and admissibility of the disclosure statement made by a 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 arraigned or implicated, including the nature of the e 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 Jaswinder Singh alias Kala Jaswinder Singh alias Kala Jaswinder Singh alias Kala Jaswinder Singh alias Kala 33729 33729 33729 33729----2025 2025 2025 2025 (2025:PHHC:089161) 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 are in addition to the conditions/parameters contained in Cr.P.C./BNSS or any other applicable extant law. e 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-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”: 4 as an accused solely 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 inistration of justice as also investigation. The final evidentiary value and admissibility of the disclosure statement made by a accused fall within the domain of the trial Court and are to be th 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 e 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 Jaswinder Singh alias Kala Jaswinder Singh alias Kala Jaswinder Singh alias Kala Jaswinder Singh alias Kala (2025:PHHC:089161) 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 applicant tinating The twin conditions contained in Section 37(1)(b) of NDPS Act are in addition to the conditions/parameters contained in e twin conditions contained in Section 37(1)(b) of NDPS Act are cumulative in nature and not alternative i.e. both the conditions ted in there are reasonable grounds MAHAVIR SINGH 2025.08.22 16:32 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/ judgment CRM-M-44687- -2025 (i) The bail Court ought to sift through all relevant 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 conduc the bail-applicant. (ii) The entire factual matrix of a given case including 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 reg 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 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, 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 exh possibly be laid down as to what would constitute parameters for 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.” 5 The bail Court ought to sift through all relevant material, including case-dairy, exclusively for the limited judicating such bail plea. 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. f 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) ely 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 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 conclusion 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 n 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). 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 judicial wisdom and discretion of the Court dealing with such 5 The bail Court ought to sift through all relevant dairy, exclusively for the limited 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 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 t of The entire factual matrix of a given case including applicant, role ascribed to him, and the nature of offence are required to be delved into. r result in the conclusion of his propensity for committing offence in the Court may, at the time of granting bail, accused a condition that he ular 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 n 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 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 austive guidelines can possibly be laid down as to what would constitute parameters for ) as every case has its own unique facts/circumstances. Making such an attempt is this issue is best left to the judicial wisdom and discretion of the Court dealing with such MAHAVIR SINGH 2025.08.22 16:32 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/ judgment CRM-M-44687- 6.3. the NDPS Act stands diluted. 7. State counsel, the petitioner has already suffered incarceration for a period of 02 months and not warranted in the facts and circumstances of the case. 8. ordered to be released on regular bail on his furnishing 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 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 of 02 months and 05 days, & is not shown to be involved in any other case/FIR 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 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 (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 while on 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. (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 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 o 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. 6 In this view of the matter, the rigor imposed under Section 37 of As per custody certificate dated 21.08.2025 filed by the learned State counsel, the petitioner has already suffered incarceration for a period of , & is not shown to be involved in any other case/FIR. 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 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: 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 ll not commit any offence while on bail. 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 is cell-phone number without prior permission of the trial Court/Illaqa Magistrate. The petitioner shall not in any manner try to delay the trial. 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, the State is mandated to move, forthwith, for cancellation of his bail which plea, but of course, shall be ratiocinated upon merits thereof. 6 In this view of the matter, the rigor imposed under Section 37 of filed by the learned State counsel, the petitioner has already suffered incarceration for a period of Suffice to say, further detention of the petitioner as an undertrial is In view of above, the present petition is allowed. Petitioner is 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 The petitioner shall not tamper with any evidence, oral or The petitioner shall not absent himself on any date before 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 phone number without prior The petitioner shall submit, on the first working day of 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 f his affidavit or otherwise, the State is mandated to move, forthwith, for cancellation of his bail which plea, but of MAHAVIR SINGH 2025.08.22 16:32 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/ judgment CRM-M-44687- 9. which may be imp hereinabove or upon showing any other sufficient cause, the State/ 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 2 August 2 August 2 August 22222,,,, 2025 2025 2025 2025 mahavir Whether speaking/reasoned: Whether reportable: -2025 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 be construed as an expression of 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 7 In case of breach of any of the aforesaid conditions and those osed 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 petitioner. inabove 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 7 In case of breach of any of the aforesaid conditions and those osed by concerned trial Court/Duty Magistrate as directed complainant inabove shall be construed as an expression of Since the main case has been decided, pending miscellaneous MAHAVIR SINGH 2025.08.22 16:32 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/ judgment