CRM-M-34238-2026 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-34238-2026 (O&M) Date of decision:07.07.2026 Kuldeep Singh @ Deepu ... Petitioner Vs. State of Haryana ... Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANISHA BATRA Present: Mr. Anuj Malik, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Neeraj Poswal, AAG, Haryana. ... Manisha Batra, J. (Oral). 1. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking benefit of regular bail in case arising out of FIR No.116, dated 13.03.2026, registered under Sections 18 and 29(1) of the NDPS Act, at Police Station Sadar Thanesar, District Kurukshetra. 2. As per the allegations, on 13.03.2026, a secret information was received to the effect that one Senu Devi, who used to supply opium in the States of Haryana, Punjab and Himachal Pradesh, was to come to Pipli, Kurukshetra from Yamuna Nagar on the same day by way of bus and she was carrying large quantity of contraband. Believing the secret information to be true, a raiding party was formed, which reached at the informed place and apprehended Senu Devi, while being in possession of 04 kgs and 30 grams of opium. She was formally arrested. The recovered contraband was HARJEET KAUR 2026.07.07 15:56 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-34238-2026 (O&M) -2- taken into possession by the police. She suffered disclosure statement admitting her involvement in the crime. On the basis of her disclosure, the petitioner, Harbans Lal and Narvind were nominated as accused. Accused Harbans Lal was arrested on 16.03.2026 whereas the petitioner was arrested on 14.03.2026. He suffered disclosure statement admitting his involvement in the crime and about receiving contraband from accused Senu Devi and selling it further. He also disclosed that the recovered contraband was to be supplied to him by Narvind through Senu Devi. Investigation now stands completed. 3. It is argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that he has been falsely implicated in this case on the basis of disclosure statement of the co-accused, which cannot be considered to be legally admissible in evidence. He was not named in the FIR. No recovery has been effected from him. The investigation already stands completed. His further incarceration would not serve any useful purpose. His antecedents are clean. It is, therefore, argued that he deserves to be extended the benefit of bail. 4. Per contra, learned State counsel, while relying upon the status report has argued that there are serious allegations against the petitioner. He had been in contact with accused Narvind by making him whatsApp calls and had also talked with accused Senu Devi, which shows the factum of his complicity in the crime. The recovery is of commercial quantity. There are chances of petitioner's absconding or committing similar offences, if extended benefit of bail. It is, therefore, stressed that the petitioner does not deserve to be extended the benefit of bail. 5. This Court has heard the rival submissions made by learned HARJEET KAUR 2026.07.07 15:56 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-34238-2026 (O&M) -3- counsel for the parties. 6. The petitioner is alleged to be involved in the business of sale/purchase of contraband. The petitioner was nominated on the disclosure statement of the co-accused, from whom the alleged recovery has been effected. No recovery has been effected from the petitioner. In Tofan Singh Vs. State of Tamil Nadu, (2021) 4 SCC 1, it was observed by Hon’ble Apex Court that the disclosure statements made under Section 67 of NDPS Act, are inadmissible in evidence unless corroborated by independent material. While the veracity of the disclosure statement against the petitioner will be tested during the course of trial, however, at this stage, it cannot be ignored that no recovery has been effected from the petitioner. 7. Reliance can also be placed upon the observations made by this Court in Anshul Sardana Vs. State of Punjab, 2005:PHHC:004198, wherein it was observed that a confession made by a co-accused under Section 67 of the NDPS Act is inherently a very weak piece of evidence and such statement cannot form the sole basis for conviction of an individual and must be scrutinized with utmost caution in conjunction with other substantive evidence. The final evidentiary value and admissibility of the disclosure statement made by a co-accused falls within the domain of the trial Court and is to be adjudicated during the course of trial in accordance with established principles of law. 8. The petitioner is in custody since long. There is nothing on record, at this stage, to connect the petitioner either with the subject crime or to show that he was connected with the co-accused in any manner at the relevant time. The trial will take considerable time to conclude. Keeping in HARJEET KAUR 2026.07.07 15:56 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-34238-2026 (O&M) -4- view the discussion as made above, this Court is of the considered opinion that a case for release of the petitioner on bail is made out. Accordingly, the petition is allowed and the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail subject to his furnishing personal bonds as well as surety bonds to the satisfaction of learned trial Court/CJM/Duty Magistrate concerned and further subject to the conditions that he shall surrender his passport, if any, during the pendency of the trial. Upon his release, he shall provide his Aadhar Card details and details of his mobile phone number to the concerned IO/SHO and shall keep his mobile phone switch on all the times. He shall provide his address where he would be residing after release and shall not change the same without informing the concerned IO/SHO. 9. Breach of any of the above conditions shall be a ground for cancellation of bail granted to the petitioner. 10. It is, however, clarified that the observations made hereinabove shall not be construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case and shall not influence the outcome of the trial. 11. Since the main petition has been allowed, pending application, if any, is rendered infructuous. (MANISHA BATRA) 07.07.2026 JUDGE harjeet Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No Whether reportable: Yes/No HARJEET KAUR 2026.07.07 15:56 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document