CRM-M-24077-2026 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 235 CRM-M-24077-2026 (O&M) Date of decision: 08.07.2026 Pankaj Sharma ...Petitioner Versus State of Haryana ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANISHA BATRA Present: Mr. Puneet Verma, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Neeraj Poswal, AAG, Haryana. *** MANISHA BATRA, J (Oral) 1. The present petition has been filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 by the petitioner seeking grant of regular bail in case bearing FIR No. 366 dated 28.11.2024 registered under Sections 15(c), 29 and 31 of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short, ‘NDPS Act’) at Police Station Kalayat, District Kaithal. 2. As per the allegations, on 25.11.2024, accused Armaan @ Mandeep and Sachin were apprehended and 44 kgs 680 grams of poppy husk was recovered from the car of which they were the occupants. The accused Armaan @ Mandeep suffered a disclosure statement on 27.11.2024 to the effect that he along with his partner Sonu had ordered 02 quintals of poppy husk from Madhya Pradesh. 44 kgs 680 grams of poppy husk was recovered from him, whereas remaining contraband was lying in the house of the co- MOHAMMAD WASEEM ANSARI 2026.07.09 09:04 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-24077-2026 (O&M) -2- accused Sonu. In pursuance of his disclosure, the police party had gone to the house of co-accused Sonu. Recovery of 165 kgs 545 grams of poppy husk was effected from his house. He was arrested in case bearing FIR No. 361 and was subsequently arrested in this case on 02.01.2025. The name of the petitioner surfaced in the disclosure statement of co-accused Arman @ Mandeep and Sonu. The petitioner was arrested on 08.12.2025. The allegations against him are that he had purchased contraband for a sum of Rs.3,80,000/- from Kamal Singh, resident of Rajasthan and had sold the same to co-accused Arman @ Mandeep and Sonu for a sum of Rs.5,00,000/-. 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 disclosure statement of the co- accused which cannot be considered to be admissible in evidence. He had no concern with the co-accused. He is in custody since long. The trial will take considerable time to conclude. No useful purpose would be served by detaining him in custody anymore. He is on bail in another case registered against him. Co-accused Sonu has already been granted concession of bail by this Court. On parity, the petitioner too deserves to be given the same benefit. Hence, it is urged that the petition deserves to be allowed. 4. Per contra, learned State counsel has argued that there are serious allegations against the petitioner. Taking into consideration the gravity of the allegations as well as his criminal antecedents, the petitioner is not entitled to get benefit of bail. Therefore, it is stressed that the petition does not deserve MOHAMMAD WASEEM ANSARI 2026.07.09 09:04 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-24077-2026 (O&M) -3- to be allowed. 5. This Court has heard the rival submissions. 6. The petitioner has been nominated in this case on the basis of the disclosure statements of co-accused, one of whom namely Sonu has already been granted concession of bail by this Court. The petitioner has been in custody for the last over six months. He is shown to be on bail in another case registered against him. As per the allegations, the petitioner had supplied the contraband to the co-accused. 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 of contraband was ever effected from the petitioner. Investigation has been completed and challan has been filed. Conclusion of trial would take considerable time. 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. MOHAMMAD WASEEM ANSARI 2026.07.09 09:04 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-24077-2026 (O&M) -4- 7. 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. 08.07.2026 (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 09:04 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document