The central legal point established in the judgment is the requirement of evidence linking the accused to the alleged offence, the evidentiary value of disclosure statements, and the applicability of relevant sections of the NDPS Act.

JUDGMENT

Arun Kumar Tyagi, J. (Oral) - The petitioner has filed the present petition under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for grant of regular bail in case FIR No.611 dated 08.11.2018 registered under Section 21(c) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short, "the NDPS Act") in Police Station Hansi, District Hansi to which Sections 27A and 29 of the NDPS Act were added lateron.

2. As per the prosecution version, on 08.11.2018 in the area of Bus Stand, Hansi the police party headed by ASI Sanjay Kumar apprehended co-accused Sachin and recovered smack weighing 2 Kgs. from his possession. During investigation co-accused Sachin made disclosure statement naming co-accused Pooja and Safdarali @ Guddu as the supplier of the contraband. In his disclosure statement co-accused Safdarali @ Guddu named the present petitioner as the person from whom he had purchased the contraband. The petitioner was arrested in the case on 26.03.2020 and recovery of amount of Rs. 10,000/- alleged to be drug money was made from his possession.

3. The petitioner being in custody has filed the present petitions for grant of regular bail.

4. The petition has been opposed by learned State Counsel in terms of reply filed by way of affidavit of Vinod Shanker, HPS, Deputy Superintendent of Police, Hansi.

5. I have heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and learned State Counsel and gone through the relevant record.

6. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner was not arrested on the spot and no contraband was recovered from his possession. The petitioner has been falsely implicated in the case on the basis of disclosure statement of co-accused Safdarali @ Guddu. There is no evidence against the petitioner as to indulging in financing or harbouring any offender or involvement in drug trafficking. The recovery of money, which is a small amount, has been planted on him. The recovery of currency notes from possession of the petitioner does not in any way incriminate as there is no evidence to link the same to drug trafficking. The petitioner has been falsely involved in four other cases under the NDPS Act on the basis of alleged disclosure statements of co-accused. Disclosure statement of a co-accused does not constitute substantive evidence and can be used against other accused only as additional material to lend credence to other evidence sufficient to incriminate him as held in Surinder Kumar Khanna Vs. Directorate of Revenue Intelligence :(2018) 8 SCC 271 and Criminal Appeal No.152 of 2013 titled as 'Toofan Singh Vs. State of Tamil Nadu' decided on 29.10.2020. There is no such evidence against the petitioner as to his involvement in the crime. The petitioner has been falsely involved in cases under the NDPS Act in the State of Haryana and the petitioner is not involved in any case under the NDPS Act in any other State. The trial is likely to take long tome due to restrictions imposed to prevent the spread of Covid-19. No useful purpose will be served by further detention of the petitioner in custody. Therefore, the petitioner may be granted regular bail.

7. On the other hand, learned State Counsel has submitted that the petitioner is a habitual offender who is involved in drug trafficking. The case involves recovery of commercial quantity of contraband and rigors of Section 37(1)(b) of the NDPS Act are applicable. In view of the nature of accusation and gravity of the offences and his involvement in four other cases under the NDPS Act, the petitioner does not deserve grant of regular bail. Therefore, the petition may be dismissed.

8. In the present case, the petitioner was not apprehended on the spot and recovery of any narcotic drug or substance was not made from him. Recovery of 2 Kgs. of smack was made from possession of co-accused Sachin who named co-accused Pooja and Safdarali @ Guddu. The petitioner has been implicated on the basis of disclosure statement of the co-accused Safdarali @ Gudd