CRM-M-39222-2026 ::1:: (239) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-39222-2026 (O & M) Date of Decision: 23.07.2026 Sanjeev @ Kala ... Petitioner Versus State of Haryana ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASJIT SINGH BEDI Present: Mr. Kuldeep Singh Siwach, Advocate, for the petitioner. Ms. Diya Sodhi, Sr. DAG, Haryana. **** JASJIT SINGH BEDI, J. The prayer in this third petition under Section 483 BNSS (Section 439 Cr.P.C.) is for the grant of regular bail in case bearing FIR No.504 dated 21.10.2020 under Sections 22(C), 27A (Act No.61) of NDPS, 1985 registered at Police Station City Tohana, District Fatehabad. 2. The brief facts of the case are that one Rakesh Kumar @ Vicky was apprehended with 432 strips containing 10 tablets each of intoxicating Tramadol tablets, 397 stips Tramadol Hydrochloride Prolonged Release Tablets IP Tricare-SR Batch No.5589012, Mfg. 05/2019, Exp.4/2021 total tablets 3970 and 35 strips of Tramadol HCI SR Tablets T-Dol-SR Batch No.FTN 190105, Mfg. 01/2019 Exp. 12/2020 totalling 350 tablets. He disclosed the name of one Ishwar as the supplier. Ishwar was arrested and disclosed the name of Sanjeev @ Kala (petitioner). SUKHPREET KAUR 2026.07.27 09:35 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document chandigarh CRM-M-39222-2026 ::2:: 3. The petitioner was granted the concession of regular bail on 18.11.2021 vide order Annexure P-2. He absented himself within 03 months on 23.02.2022. He was declared a proclaimed offender on 13.07.2023 and re- arrested only on 02.07.2025. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case only on the basis of the disclosure statement of one of the arrested accused. The said statement has little evidentiary value in the eyes of law and therefore, he is entitled to the concession of bail in view of the judgment of Tofan Singh Versus State of Tamil Nadu, 2020 AIR (Supreme Court) 5592. 5. He next contends that the Hon’ble Supreme Court Subhabrata Roy @ Bapi Roy @ Roy Bapi versus The State of West Bengal (SLP [Criminal] 4637-2023 decided on 18.07.2023), Baldev Singh versus State of Punjab (SLP [Crl.] No.2364-2025 decided on 09.07.2025, Naveen Saini alias Chintu versus State of Punjab (SLP [Crl.] No.2710-2025 decided on 16.04.2025, Supriya Chaki versus The State of West Bengal (SLP [Crl.] 807-2020 decided on 12.01.2023 and Subodh Kumar Sagar @ Subodh Kumar Sah versus The State of Bihar (SLP [Criminal] No.12013-2022 decided on 15.02.2023’, has granted either the concession of regular bail or anticipatory bail to the accused therein on the ground of prolonged custody or as the accused were named in the disclosure statements. As the petitioner is now in custody since 02.07.2025 but only 07 out of the 11 prosecution witnesses have been examined so far, the Trial of the present case is not likely SUKHPREET KAUR 2026.07.27 09:35 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document chandigarh CRM-M-39222-2026 ::3:: to be concluded anytime soon and therefore, he is entitled to the concession of bail. 6. The learned counsel for the State, on the other hand, contends that the petitioner is a serial offender with 05 other cases registered against him under the NDPS Act. He was granted the concession of regular bail in the present case on 18.11.2021 (Annexure P-2). In FIR No.176 dated 26.04.2021, he was granted bail on 11.11.2021 and in FIR No. 67 dated 25.04.2021, he was granted bail on 14.10.2021. Immediately on being granted bail, he has committed other similar offences under the NDPS Act for which an FIR No.171 stands registered on 25.12.2021 and FIR No.227 stands registered on 31.05.2022. In both these cases, he continues to be in custody whereas in 03 other cases, he has been granted the concession of bail. Apparently, the petitioner commits an offence, seeks the concession of bail and on being granted bail, commits similar offences. The FIR in the present case stands registered under Sections 22(C), 27A of the NDPS Act. Therefore, in view of Section 37 of the NDPS Act, the petitioner is not entitled to the concession of regular bail. As regards the conduct of the petitioner, he contends that the petitioner on being granted bail in the present case on 18.11.2021, absented himself on 23.02.2022, was declared a proclaimed person on 13.07.2023 and came to be re-arrested only on 02.07.2025. There is every possibility that the petitioner will abscond from justice or commit similar offences if he is granted the concession of bail. Even otherwise, there are no change in circumstances warranting grant of bail SUKHPREET KAUR 2026.07.27 09:35 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document chandigarh CRM-M-39222-2026 ::4:: when the earlier bail application of the petitioner came to be dismissed as withdrawn on 10.02.2026 (Annexure P-9). 7. As regards the orders cited by the petitioner, he contends that the case of the petitioner is on a different footing inasmuch as he is an accused in 05 other cases of a similar nature and has remained absconding for three and a half years. He, thus, contends that the petitioner is not entitled to the concession of bail. 8. I have heard the learned counsel for both the parties at length. 9. This Court in Soni Singh @ Chamkaur Sahib, CRM-M-31645- 2022, decided on 20.10.2022, has held as under:- “The Counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner is not named in the FIR nor in the secret information. He has been named only in the disclosure statement of his co-accused which is inadmissible in evidence and even otherwise since the recovery effected from him of 3 Kgs of Poppy Husk is of non commercial quantity, therefore the rigors of Section 37 of NDPS Act did not apply to the petitioner. Since the petitioner was in custody since 26.05.2022 and the trial was not likely to be concluded in the near future, he deserved the concession of bail. The Counsel for the State on the other hand contends that the petitioner is a trafficker along with his co-accused. As per the disclosure statement 200 Kgs of Poppy Husk was to be supplied to the petitioner. Further he is involved in two other cases under the NDPS Act as also one case under the Excise Act and, therefore, did not deserve the concession of bail in view of his antecedents. I have heard counsel for both the sides at length. Admittedly, the petitioner in the present case is named in the disclosure statement of the arrested accused. SUKHPREET KAUR 2026.07.27 09:35 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document chandigarh CRM-M-39222-2026 ::5:: Subsequently thereto 3Kgs of Poppy Husk was recovered at his instance which is a non commercial quantity. It may be relevant to mention here that limitations to the grant of bail under Section 37 of the NDPS Act are in addition to those prescribed under Cr.PC or any other law inforce on the grant of bail as has been set out by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Satpal Singh Vs. State of Punjab 2018(5) RCR (Criminal) 152. In the present case, the petitioner is involved in two other cases under the NDPS Act. Thus, as he is a habitual offender, he is not entitled to the grant of bail even under Section 439 Cr.PC keeping in view his antecedents. Even otherwise, assuming that the rigors of Section 37 of the NDPS Act did not apply to the petitioner, that by itself would not ipso facto lead to the grant of bail to the petitioner. In view of the above discussion, I find no merit in the present petition and the same is therefore dismissed. (emphasis supplied) 10. This Court in the case of Ranjit Singh Versus State of Punjab, CRM-M-25526-2023, decided on 17.07.2023, has held as under:- “8. Coming back to the facts of the present case, it is pertinent to note here that other than the instant FIR in which the petitioner has been nominated as an accused on the basis of the disclosure statement of the arrested accused, the petitioner is also an accused in two other cases under the NDPS Act. In addition, he had been an accused in three other cases, though he has been acquitted in the said cases. It is highly unlikely that the petitioner would have been implicated in multiple FIRs at the whims and fancies of the Investigating Agency. 9. When there are multiple FIRs against a person over a significant period of time (in this case 18 years), then even though he may have been acquitted in some of those cases, the twin conditions as envisaged under Section 37 of the NDPS Act SUKHPREET KAUR 2026.07.27 09:35 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document chandigarh CRM-M-39222-2026 ::6:: that he has not committed an offence and was not likely to commit an offence cannot be satisfied. 10. Keeping in view the conduct of the petitioner and his criminal antecedents, his custodial interrogation would certainly be necessary to effect necessary recoveries and to take the investigation to its logical conclusion. 11. In view of the above, I find no merit in the present petition. Therefore, the same stands dismissed. (emphasized supplied) 11. In Soni Singh @ Chamkaur Sahib (supra) and Ranjit Singh (supra) it has been held by this Court that where there were multiple FIRs against an accused over a period of time then, even though he had been named in a disclosure statement, he is not entitled to the concession of bail. 12. Coming back to the present case, the petitioner was initially granted bail on 18.11.2021. Within 03 months, he absented himself, was declared a proclaimed offender and came to be re-arrested only after 03 years. During the interim period, pursuant to the grant of bail, the petitioner has committed offences of a similar kind leading to the registration of the FIR No. 171 dated 25.12.2021 and FIR No.227 dated 31.05.2022. Apparently, the petitioner commits an offence, is granted bail and thereafter, while on bail commits similar offences. Further, the present FIR stands registered under Section 27-A as well. This Court cannot record a satisfaction under Section 37 of the NDPS Act that the petitioner has not committed an offence and is not likely to commit one in future. In the various orders of the Hon’ble Supreme Court relied upon by the petitioner, the accused therein had not absconded for 03 years and while in some of those cases, there were other cases registered against the accused therein but in other cases, the petitioners SUKHPREET KAUR 2026.07.27 09:35 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document chandigarh CRM-M-39222-2026 ::7:: were accused only in a single case. In the present case, as has already been pointed about, the petitioner is an accused in 05 other cases of a similar nature. The details of the aforesaid cases registered against the petitioner are as under:- Sr. No. FIR No. Dated Under Sections Police Station Status 1. 227 31.05.2022 22C/61/85 NDPS Act City Tohana, Fatehabad Undertrial 2. 176 26.04.2021 15/27-A NDPS Act City Tohana, Fatehabad Undertrial 3. 234/2019 27.09.2019 21-b/27-A NDPS Act Sadar, Fatehabad Udertrial 4. 67 25.04.2021 22C/27A/61/85 NDPS Act Sadar Tohana, Fatehabad Undertrial 5. 171 25.12.2020 22/29/61/85 NDPS Act Moonak, Sangrur Undertrial 13. Keeping in view the allegations levelled against the petitioner as well as his antecedents and the fact that Section 27-A of the NDPS Act has also been invoked, the satisfaction under Section 37 of the NDPS Act that he has not committed an offence and is not likely to commit one in the future cannot be recorded. Further, the limitation to the grant of bail under Section 37 of the NDPS Act is in addition to those limitations prescribed under the Cr.P.C. or any other law in force on the grant of bail. Thus, a habitual offender is ordinarily not entitled to the grant of bail keeping in view his criminal antecedents even though, his co-accused who are similarly situated may have been granted the concession of either anticipatory bail or regular bail. 14. In addition, looking at the prior conduct of the petitioner of absconding for more than 03 years, there is every possibility that he will abscond again if granted bail. SUKHPREET KAUR 2026.07.27 09:35 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document chandigarh CRM-M-39222-2026 ::8:: 15. On an earlier occasion also, the petitioner has approached this Court seeking the concession of bail. The detail of the same is as under:- Sr. No. Bail Application Date of Decision 1. CRM-M-54745-2025 Dismissed as withdrawn on 10.02.2026 The present bail application has been preferred without any significant change in material circumstances warranting grant of bail. In fact, the Trial is at the fag end and 07 out of the 11 prosecution witnesses have been examined. 16. Keeping in view the aforementioned facts and circumstances of the case, I find no merit in the present petition. Therefore, the same stands dismissed. 17. The pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of accordingly. (JASJIT SINGH BEDI) JUDGE 23.07.2026 sukhpreet Whether speaking/reasoned:- Yes/No Whether reportable:- Yes/No SUKHPREET KAUR 2026.07.27 09:35 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document chandigarh