CRM-M No.22902 of 2026 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 309 CRM-M No.22902 of 2026 Date of decision: 08.07.2026 Deepender @ Dipendra Singh @ Aneet ... Petitioner Vs. State of Haryana ... Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANISHA BATRA Present:- Ms. Gagandeep Kaur, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Neeraj Poswal, AAG, Haryana, for the respondent-State. ---- MANISHA BATRA, J. (Oral) 1. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short ‘BNSS’) seeking regular bail in the FIR mentioned below:- FIR No. Dated Police Station Sections 0296 16.07.2025 City Bahadurgarh, District Jhajjar 22 and 29 of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short ‘NDPS Act’) 2. As per the allegations, on 16.07.2025, a secret information was MANJU 2026.07.08 16:27 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order /judgment Chandigarh CRM-M No.22902 of 2026 -2- received to the effect that one Rahul was indulged in the sale of contraband and was present with one CNG Auto Vehicle at Chhotu Ram Nagar road at that point of time with intent to sell some narcotics and that he could be apprehended if a raid was conducted immediately. Believing the secret information to be true, a raiding party was formed which reached at the informed place and apprehended the above named Rahul. On conducting search, 41 bottles of Codeine Phosphate and Triprolidine Hydrocholride Syrup Lukarex – T Cough Syrup 100 ml. and 24 bottles of the same syrup brand make REXLEY-T were found in his possession. He failed to produce any licence or permit for keeping the same. He was formally arrested and recovered material was taken into possession by the police. The accused Rahul was interrogated and suffered disclosure statement to the effect that he had procured 70 bottles of intoxicated medicines from one Sanjeet Chhikara who was nominated as such. Sanjeet Chhikara was arrested on 10.09.2025. He too suffered disclosure statement admitting his involvement in the crime and also that he had purchased the intoxicating material from the present petitioner by contacting him through his Whatsapp. The petitioner was nominated as such. He was arrested on 07.02.2026. He suffered disclosure statement admitting his involvement in the crime by saying that he had given the intoxicating syrup bottles to the accused Sanjeet Chhikara for a sum of Rs.17,500/- after purchasing the same from one Ibrahim. Investigation MANJU 2026.07.08 16:27 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order /judgment Chandigarh CRM-M No.22902 of 2026 -3- now stands concluded. 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 co-accused which cannot be considered to be legally admissible in evidence. No recovery has been effected from him. He is not required for further investigation. The trial will take considerable time to conclude. No useful purpose would be served by detaining him in custody any more. It is, therefore, argued that he deserves to be released on bail. 4. Per contra, learned State counsel while relying upon the status report has argued that taking into consideration the gravity of the allegations as levelled against the petitioner and the part played by him, he does not deserve to be extended benefit of bail. 5. This Court has considered the rival submissions. 6. The well settled proposition of law is that the Court while considering an application for grant of bail has to keep certain factors in mind, such as, whether there is a prima facie case or reasonable ground to believe that the accused has committed the offence; circumstances which are peculiar to the accused; likelihood of the offence being repeated; the nature and gravity of the accusation; severity of the punishment in the event of conviction; the danger of accused absconding or fleeing, if released on bail and reasonable apprehension of the witnesses being threatened. The period of incarceration is also relevant fact that is to be MANJU 2026.07.08 16:27 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order /judgment Chandigarh CRM-M No.22902 of 2026 -4- considered. It is also unequivocally established that, to be granted bail, the accused charged with offence under the provisions of NDPS Act must fulfill the conditions stipulated in Section 37 of the NDPS Act. 7. The case of the prosecution is that the name of the petitioner was disclosed by the co-accused Sanjeet Chhikara. As per his disclosure statement, he had purchased the contraband 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 was ever effected from the petitioner. The petitioner is in custody since 07.02.2026. Challan has been presented. The trial will take time. The object of jail is to secure the appearance of the accused during the trial and it can neither be punitive nor preventive and the deprivation of liberty has been considered as a punishment. As per the discussion made above, this Court is of the considered opinion that a case for release of the petitioner is made out. Accordingly, the petition is allowed and the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail subject to his furnishing personal/surety bonds to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court/Chief Judicial Magistrate/ Duty Magistrate concerned and on the following conditions:- MANJU 2026.07.08 16:27 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order /judgment Chandigarh CRM-M No.22902 of 2026 -5- (i) the petitioner shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case or tamper with the evidence of the case in any manner whatsoever. (ii) he shall not leave the country under any circumstance without permission of the learned trial Court. (iii) he shall appear before the learned trial Court as and when directed. (iv) he shall provide his permanent address as well as present address before the learned trial Court at the time of furnishing of bonds and shall not change the same without informing the trial Court. (v) the petitioner shall give details of his mobile phone number(s) to the learned trial Court at the time of furnishing of bonds and in case, any change in his mobile phone number takes place, then he shall inform about the same to the learned trial Court in advance and shall keep his mobile phone switch on all times. 8. In the event of there being any FIR/complaint lodged against the petitioner, it shall be open to the respondent to seek redressal by filing an application seeking cancellation of bail. 9. It is, however, clarified that the observations made hereinabove MANJU 2026.07.08 16:27 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order /judgment Chandigarh CRM-M No.22902 of 2026 -6- shall not be construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case and shall not influence the outcome of the trial. (MANISHA BATRA) 08.07.2026 JUDGE manju Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether reportable Yes/No MANJU 2026.07.08 16:27 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order /judgment Chandigarh