CRM-M-9513-2026 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-9513-2026 (O&M) Bhupinder Singh @ Keeda ...Petitioner Versus State of Haryana ...Respondent Sr. No. Particulars Details 1 The date when the judgment is reserved 21.07.2026 2 The date when the judgment is pronounced 22.07.2026 3 The date when the judgment is uploaded on the website 22.07.2026 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. Vikram Jeet Singh, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Neeraj Poswal, AAG, Haryana. 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. 284 dated 11.04.2024, registered under Sections 25 and 15 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short ‘NDPS Act’) at Police Station Assandh, District Karnal. 2. Brief facts of the case relevant for the disposal of the present petition are that on 11.04.2024, on the basis of a secret information, co-accused Paramjeet Singh @ Buto and Satnam Singh, while coming in a truck bearing MOHAMMAD WASEEM ANSARI 2026.07.22 10:34 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-9513-2026 (O&M) -2- registration number HR-45-D-2499, were apprehended by a police party and recovery of 110 kgs. of doda post, which was kept in 11 different bags in the said vehicle, was effected. Since they could not produce any valid license or permit to keep in their possession the recovered contraband, they were formally arrested at the spot. During the course of investigation, it surfaced that the petitioner along with co-accused Jarnail Singh was also involved in sale and supply of doda post as they used to bring the same from Madhya Pradesh and sell it to the market or nearby villages. On the basis of the same, both the said persons were nominated as accused in this case. The petitioner was arrested on 19.12.2025. He suffered disclosure statement admitting his involvement in the commission of subject crime. After completion of necessary investigation and usual formalities, challan was presented in the Court and presently, the petitioner along with the co-accused is facing trial for commission of aforementioned offences. 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. Moreso, his name has surfaced in the second disclosure of the aforesaid co-accused. No recovery has ever been effected from him. There is nothing on record to connect him with the alleged crime. He is in custody since long. Investigation has since been completed and challan has been filed. Similarly situated co-accused Jarnail Singh has already been granted concession of regular bail by this Court. Main accused Paramjit Singh @ Buto has also been granted concession of bail by this Court. Even the main supplier MOHAMMAD WASEEM ANSARI 2026.07.22 10:34 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-9513-2026 (O&M) -3- namely Ravindra Singh Saundhiya has been granted concession of bail by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. On parity, the petitioner too deserves to be given the same benefit. Pendency of other cases against him cannot be made a reason to deny him concession of bail in this case in given circumstances. Therefore, it is urged that the petition deserves to be allowed and the petitioner deserves to be released on regular bail. 4. Status report along with the 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. Rigors of Section 37 of the NDPS Act would be attracted against the petitioner. He was in constant tough over phone with the co-accused during relevant time, which shows his complicity with the co-accused. 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 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 MOHAMMAD WASEEM ANSARI 2026.07.22 10:34 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-9513-2026 (O&M) -4- 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 petitioner has been nominated in this case as an accused on the allegations that he was indulged in procuring and supplying the contraband to the co-accused. His name has surfaced in the second disclosure statement of 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 was ever effected from the petitioner. The petitioner was arrested on 19.12.2025. 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 as admittedly there is no transcript of any conversation showing that the petitioner had committed subject crime. Investigation has been completed and challan has been filed. Conclusion of trial would take considerable time. The above named co-accused have already been granted concession of regular bail by this Court or by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. 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 MOHAMMAD WASEEM ANSARI 2026.07.22 10:34 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-9513-2026 (O&M) -5- 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. 22.07.2026 (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 2026.07.22 10:34 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document