##PAGE1##

CRM-M-7483-2026 -1-

120 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT

CHANDIGARH CRM-M-7483-2026

Date of Decision:-24.03.2026 RAJ KUMAR @ SHANKAR @ KAKU ......Petitioner

VERSUS STATE OF HARYANA ......Respondent

CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASJIT SINGH BEDI

Present:- Mr. Sandeep Saini, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Viney Phogat, DAG, Haryana.

***

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.373 dated 08.11.2024 (Annexure P- 1) registered under Sections 22 and 29 (added later on) of the NDPS Act at

Police Station Baldev Nagar, District Ambala, Haryana.

2. The brief facts of the case are that recovery of 177 strips (total 1416 capsules) of Spasmo Proxyvon Plus capsules containing salt Dicyclomine Hydrochloride Tramadol Hydrochloride & Acetaminophen Capsules carrying eight capsules each came to be effected from Shiv Kumar. He disclosed that he was to deliver the contraband to Raj Kumar @ Shankar

Kaku (petitioner).

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

KUSUM

2026.03.25 10:52 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document PHHC Chandigarh

CRM-M-7483-2026 -2-

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 10.11.2024 but only 01 of the 30 prosecution witnesses has been examined so far, he is entitled to the concession of bail, moreso when a co- accused, namely Karan Yadav has been granted the concession of bail vide

order dated 30.01.2026 (Annexure P-3).

4. On the other hand, the learned State counsel contends that in view of the serious allegations levelled against the petitioner, he is 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 10.11.2024 but only 01 of the 30 prosecution witnesses has

been examined so far and that a co-accused, namely Karan Yadav has been

KUSUM

2026.03.25 10:52 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document PHHC Chandigarh

CRM-M-7483-2026 -3-

granted the concession of bail vide order dated 30.01.2026 (Annexure P-3).

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