Regular bail may be granted under the NDPS Act where the accused is implicated solely by co-accused disclosure statements without recovery, and trial delays infringe upon personal liberty, satisfying the court of the prima facie absence of guilt.

****

JASJIT SINGH BEDI, J.

The prayer in the present petition under Section 483 BNSS is for the grant of regular bail in case bearing FIR No.21 dated 14.03.2025 registered under Sections 21(c), 61 and 85 of the NDPS Act, Sections 10, 11, 11(a) of Aircraft Act and Sections 25, 54 and 59 of Arms Act at Police Station Dorangala.

2. The brief facts of the case are that Kuldip Singh, Baljinder Singh and Namandeep Singh (petitioner) were apprehended by a police party. Kuldip Singh threw a packet on the ground which was found to contain 255 grams of heroin. FIR No.34 dated 15.04.2025 under Sections 21(c), 61 and 85 of NDPS Act, Section 111 of BNS and Sections 29, 61 and 85 of NDPS Act (Section 52 of Prison Act added later on) came to be registered against them. The arrested accused disclosed that FIR No.21 dated 14.03.2025 under Sections 21(c), 61 and 85 of the NDPS Act, Sections 10, 11, 11(a) of Aircraft Act and Sections 25, 54 and 59 of Arms Act was registered at Police Station Dorangala when 2 kg of heroin along with 2 pistols, 04 magazines and 66 live cartridges had been recovered by the police party. It was the arrested accused, who had procured the same from across the border. Based on these disclosure statements, the petitioner and his co-accused came to be nominated as accused in this FIR No.21 dated 14.03.2025 under Sections 21(c), 61 and 85 of the NDPS Act, Sections 10, 11, 11(a) of Aircraft Act and Sections 25, 54 and 59 of Arms Act, as well.

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 figures in his disclosure statement and that of his co-accused namely, Kuldip Singh and Baljinder Singh which was recorded when all three had been arrested in FIR No.34 dated 15.04.2025. Pursuant to his arrest in FIR No.21 dated 14.03.2025, no recovery has been effected from him. As the petitioner is in custody since 15.04.2025 but none of the 13 prosecution witnesses has been examined so far and he is also involved only in one other case bearing FIR No.34 dated 15.04.2025 under Sections 21(c), and 29 of NDPS Act, Section 111 of BNS and Sections 21(c)/61/85 of NDPS Act at Police Station Dorangala, he is entitled to the concession of bail.

4. On the other hand, the learned State counsel contends that in view of the serious nature of allegations levelled against the petitioner, he is not entitled to the concession of bail. He, however, concedes that the petitioner is nominated as an accused only on the basis of disclosure statement while he was in custody in FIR No.34 dated 15.04.2025 under Sections under Sections 21(c), 61 and 85 of NDPS Act, Section 111 of BNS and Sections 29, 61 and 85 of NDPS Act (Section 52 of Prison Act added later on), that no recovery has been effected from him, and that he is in custody since 15.04.2025 but none of the 13 prosecution witnesses has been examined been examined so far.

5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties.

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 behal