IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Reserved on: 01.09.2025 Pronounced on: 18.09.2025 Sushil Kumar ...Petitioner Versus State of Haryana …Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANOOP CHITKARA Present: Mr. Namit Khurana, Advocate, for the petitioner.

Mr. Atul Gaur, AAG, Haryana.

****

ANOOP CHITKARA, J.

FIR No. Dated Police Station Sections

84 07.03.2025 Bilaspur, Distt. Yamuna Nagar 22(c), 29 of NDPS Act

1. The petitioner incarcerated in the FIR captioned above had come up before this Court under Section 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, [BNSS], seeking regular bail.

2. As per paragraph 14 of the bail application, the petitioner has no criminal antecedents.

3. The facts and allegations are taken from the status report filed by the State. On 07.03.2025, based on secret information, the Police seized 1152 capsules of Tramadol from the possession of co-accused Ravi Kumar. The Investigator claims to have complied with all the statutory requirements of the NDPS Act, 1985, and BNSS, 2023. During the custodial interrogation of the co-accused Ravi Kumar, he disclosed the name of petitioner as the main supplier; based on the disclosure statement, the police arraigned the petitioner as an accused by incorporating S. 29 of the NDPS Act.

4. The petitioner's counsel prays for bail by imposing any stringent conditions and contends that further pre-trial incarceration would cause an irreversible injustice to the petitioner and his family.

5. The State’s counsel opposes bail and refers to the status report.

6. It would be appropriate to refer to the following portions of the status report, which reads as follows:

“5. That as per the record there are total 3 accused persons i.e. Ravi Kumar, Sushil Kumar, Ankit Kumar implicated so far in the present case and name of present petitioner surfaced in the disclosure statement of co-accused and CDR details to that effect. During the investigation, it was found that arrested co-accused Ravi Kumar was having regular communication telephonically with the present petitioner/accused as mentioned in CDR details (Annexure R-1). Therefore, the chain of circumstances in the present case duly proves the case of prosecution which shows the guilt of accused as per the law laid down by Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sharad Birdhichand Sarda Vs. State of Maharashtra, 1984 AIR Supreme Court 1622.

REASONING:

7. Primafacie the weight of the tramadol tablets fall in the commercial category, and dealing in commercial quantity of Tramadol in contravention of the NDPS Act, 1985, attracts rigors of S. 37 of the NDPS Act.

8. The quantity allegedly involved in this case is commercial. Given this, the rigors of S. 37 of the NDPS Act apply in the present case. The petitioner must satisfy the twin conditions put in place by the Legislature under Section 37 of the NDPS Act.

9. The petitioner’s counsel argued that the call details cannot be relied upon at the bail stage, and if the said evidence is ignored, then there is only the inadmissible evidence of the disclosure statement.

10. In State Vs. Pallulabid Ahmad Arimutta and Ors., 2022 INSC 26 [MANU/SC/0053/2022], a three-member bench of Hon'ble Supre Court holds as follows:

[10] It has been held in clear terms in Tofan Singh v. State of Tamil Nadu MANU/SC/0797/2020 : (2021) 4 SCC 1, that a confessional statement recorded Under Section 67 of the NDPS Act will remain inadmissible in the trial of an offence under the NDPS Act. In the teeth of the aforesaid decision, the arrests made by the Petitioner- NCB, on the basis of the confession/voluntary statements of the Respondents or the co-Accused Under Section 67 of the NDPS Act, cannot form the basis for overturning the impugned orders releasing them on bail. The CDR details of some of the Accused or the allegations of tampering of evidence on the part of one of the Respondents is an aspect that will be examined at the stage of trial. For the aforesaid reason, this Court is not inclined to interfere in the orders dated 16th