CRM-M-22871-2026 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-22871-2026 (O&M) Rajiv Kumar ...Petitioner Versus State of Punjab ...Respondent Sr. No. Particulars Details 1 The date when the judgment is reserved 08.07.2026 2 The date when the judgment is pronounced 09.07.2026 3 The date when the judgment is uploaded on the website 09.07.2026 4 Whether only operative part of the judgment is pronounced or full judgment is pronounced Full 5 The delay, if any, of the pronouncement of full judgment, and reasons thereof Not applicable CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANISHA BATRA Present:- Mr. Bipan Ghai, Senior Advocate with Mr. Nikhil Ghai, Advocate for the petitioner. Ms. Sakshi Bakshi, AAG, Punjab. MANISHA BATRA, J. 1. Prayer in this petition, filed under Section 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, is for grant of regular bail to the petitioner in FIR No. 217 dated 30.10.2025, registered under Sections 18-C, 25 and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short ‘NDPS Act’) at Police Station Chheharta, District Amritsar. 2. Brief facts of the case relevant for the disposal of the present petition are that on 30.10.2025, co-accused Naresh Devgan and Prahlad Kumar were apprehended by a police party and recovery of 05 kgs. of opium was MOHAMMAD WASEEM ANSARI 2026.07.09 16:24 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-22871-2026 (O&M) -2- effected from them. They were formally arrested. On interrogation, it surfaced that the recovered contraband was supplied to the co-accused by the present petitioner. On the basis of the same, the petitioner was nominated as co- accused in this case and was arrested on 31.01.2026. Investigation now stands completed and challan has been filed. 3. It is argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that he has been falsely implicated in this case on the basis of the disclosure statement of the above named co-accused, which cannot be considered to be admissible in evidence. No subsequent recovery has been effected from him. There is nothing on record to show that the petitioner was involved in the subject crime in any manner with the co-accused. Even otherwise, investigation has since been completed and challan has been filed. Conclusion of trial is likely to take considerable time. Although he is involved in some other cases but he is on bail in those cases. The petitioner has been in custody since long. No useful purpose would be served by keeping him in custody anymore. Therefore, it is urged that the petition deserves to be allowed and the petitioner deserves to be released on regular bail. 4. Custody certificate of the petitioner has been filed by the respondent-State. Learned State counsel has argued that keeping in view the gravity of the allegations levelled against the petitioner as well as his criminal antecedents, he is not entitled to get benefit of bail as Section 37 of the NDPS Act would be attracted in this case. It is, thus, argued that the petition is liable to be dismissed. 5. This Court has heard the rival submissions. 6. The well settled proposition of law is that the Court while MOHAMMAD WASEEM ANSARI 2026.07.09 16:24 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-22871-2026 (O&M) -3- 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 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 Act. A contention has been raised that the rigors of Section 37 of the NDPS Act are attracted in the present case as there is recovery of commercial quantity of contraband. 7. The case of the prosecution is that the name of the petitioner was disclosed by the above named co-accused, from whom recovery of commercial quantity of the contraband was effected. As per their disclosure statements, they had sourced 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 was arrested on 31.01.2026. 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. Investigation has been completed MOHAMMAD WASEEM ANSARI 2026.07.09 16:24 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-22871-2026 (O&M) -4- and challan has been filed. Conclusion of trial would take considerable time. Pendency of other cases against the petitioner cannot be considered to be a ground for denying him benefit of bail in given circumstances. Keeping in view the aforesaid facts and circumstances, this Court is of the considered opinion that no useful purpose would be served by keeping the petitioner in custody anymore. Accordingly, the present petition is allowed. The petitioner is ordered to be released on regular bail, subject to his furnishing personal/surety bonds to the satisfaction of the trial Court/Duty Magistrate concerned. However, it will be open for the prosecution to apply for cancellation of bail in case the petitioner is found involved in any other subsequent case. 8. It is made clear that any observation made herein above is only for the purpose of deciding the present petition and the same shall have no bearing on the merits of the case. 09.07.2026 (MANISHA BATRA) Waseem R. Ansari Waseem R. Ansari Waseem R. Ansari Waseem R. Ansari JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether reportable Yes/No MOHAMMAD WASEEM ANSARI 2026.07.09 16:24 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document