Bail can be granted when an accused is named in a co-accused's disclosure statement without recovery, especially if they are a first-time offender and the trial is delayed.

JUDGMENT

Mr. Jasjit Singh Bedi, J.

The prayer in this petition under Section 439 Cr.PC is for the grant of regular bail in case FIR No.0285 dated 31.03.2023 under Sections 21(c), (Section 27(a) of NDPS Act, 1985 and section 14 of Foreigners Act, 1946 added later on) at Police Station Hisar Sadar, District Hisar.

2. The brief facts of the case are that the arrested accused disclosed that they had purchased the contraband from the petitioner.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner had been falsely implicated in the present case. He contends that the name of the petitioner figured in the disclosure statement of his co-accused. Pursuant to his arrest, no recovery whatsoever had been effected. Reliance is placed on the judgments in the cases of Tofan Singh v. State of Tamil Nadu, 2020 AIR (Supreme Court) 5592, Rakesh Kumar Singla v. Union of India, 2021 (1) RCR (Criminal) 704, Surinder Kumar Khanna v. Intelligence Officer Directorate of Revenue Intelligence, 2018 (3) RCR (Criminal) 954, State by (NCB) Bengaluru v. Pallulabid Ahmad Arimutta & Anr. 2022 (1) RCR (Criminal) 762, Sanjeev Chandra Agarwal & Anr. v. Union of India 2021 (4) RCR (Criminal) 590, Vijay Singh v. The State of Haryana, bearing Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No.(s).1266/2023 decided on 17.05.2023 & Vikrant Singh v. State of Punjab, CRM-M-39657- 2020", wherein it has been held that the accused can be granted the concession of regular bail where he has been named in the disclosure statement of his co-accused and there is no other corroborative evidence against the accused. As the petitioner was a first-time offender, in custody since 02.04.2023 and none of the 15 prosecution witnesses had been examined so far, he was entitled to the concession of bail.

4. The learned counsel for the respondent-State, on the other hand, contends that in view of the serious allegations levelled against the petitioner, he was not entitled to the grant of bail. He, however, admits that the petitioner is named in the disclosure statement of his co-accused and no recovery was effected from him. He also concedes that the petitioner was a first-time offender, in custody since 02.04.2023 and none of the 15 prosecution witnesses have been examined so far.

5. I have heard the learned counsel for both the parties at length.

6. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Haryana v. Samarth Kumar (supra), held as under:-

"4. The High Court decided to grant pre-arrest bail to the respondents on the only ground that no recovery was effected from the respondents and that they had been implicated only on the basis of the disclosure statement of the main accused Dinesh Kumar. Therefore, reliance was placed by the High Court in the majority judgment of this Court in Tofan Singh v. State of Tamil Nadu reported in (2021) 4 SCC 1.

5. But, it is contended by the learned Additional Advocate General appearing on behalf of the State of Haryana that on the basis of the anticipatory bail granted to the respondents, the Special Court was constrained to grant regular bail even to the main accused-Dinesh Kumar and he jumped bail. Fortunately, the main accused-Dinesh Kumar has again been apprehended. According to the learned Additional Advocate General, the respondent in the second of these appeals is also a habitual offender.

6. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent in the first of these Appeals contends that the State is guilty of suppression of the vital fact that the respondent was granted regular bail after the charge-sheet was filed and that therefore, nothing survives in the appeal. But,we do not agree.

7. The order of the Special Court granting regular bail to the respondents shows that the said order was passed in pursuance of the anticipatory bail granted by the High Court. Therefore, the same cannot be a ground to hold that the present appeals have become in fructuous.

8. In cases of this nature, the respondents may be able to take advantage of the decisio