Bail can be granted when the accused is named in a disclosure statement but no recovery exists against them, mitigating the necessity for continued custody.

JASJIT SINGH BEDI, J.

The prayer in this petition under Section 483 BNSS, 2023 is for the grant of regular bail in case FIR No.001 dated 05.01.2025 registered under Sections 21 , 25 and 29 of NDPS Act at Police Station Bhindi Saidan, District Amritsar Rural.

2. The brief facts of the case are that Balbir Singh and Ajay Verma were found driving a car driven by Balbir Singh. The recovery of 2 Kgs of heroin came to be effected under the co-driver seat. The arrested accused suffered their disclosure statements to the effect that the contraband was supplied by Sukhdev Singh (petitioner), Harman Singh and Harmandeep Singh @ Honey. All the three accused were arrested on 06.01.2025. No contraband was recovered from them. However, 4 empty plastic containers and an electronic weighing scale was recovered from their joint possession.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner has 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 Versus State of Tamil Nadu , 2020 AIR (Supreme Court) 5592, Rakesh Kumar Singla Versus Union of India , 2021(1) RCR (Criminal) 704, Surinder Kumar Khanna Versus Intelligence Officer Directorate of Revenue Intelligence , 2018(3) RCR (Criminal) 954, State by (NCB) Bengaluru Versus Pallulabid Ahmad Arimutta & Anr. 2022(1) RCR (Criminal) 762, Sanjeev Chandra Agarwal & Anr. Versus Union of India 2021(4) RCR (Criminal) 590, Vijay Singh Versus The State of Haryana , bearing Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No.(s).1266/2023 decided on 17.05.2023 & Vikrant Singh Versus 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 is a first- time offender, is in custody since 06.01.2025 and none of the 19 prosecution witnesses has been examined so far, he is 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 is a first-time offender, is in custody since 06.01.2025 and none of the 19 prosecution witnesses has 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 Versus 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 t