IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of decision: 23.09.2025 Raj Kumar ....Petitioner V/s State of Haryana ....Respondent CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL Present: Mr. Gyan Parkash, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Gurmeet Singh, AAG Haryana.

*****

SUMEET GOEL, J. (Oral)

1. Present petition has been filed on behalf of the petitioner seeking grant of anticipatory/pre-arrest bail under Section 482 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (hereinafter to be referred as ‘BNSS’) in FIR No.12 dated 08.01.2025 registered for offences punishable under Sections 22(b) and 29 of the NDPS Act at Police Station Taraori, District Karnal.

2. The gravamen of the FIR in question is that on 08.01.2025, the police team led by ASI Vinod Kumar was on patrol duty near Taraori, G.T. Road when a secret informer revealed that accused Ajay, son of Darshan (village Sonkara), was present near the Tempo Stand, Taraori, with Tramadol and Alprazolam tablets for sale. Acting on this credible information, accused Ajay was apprehended in possession of an orange polythene bag. After being served a notice under Section 50 of the NDPS Act, the said accused opted for a search in the presence of a Gazetted Officer. In the presence of Gajender Kumar, DSP, 192 Tramadol capsules having weight of 96 grams and 600 Alprazolam tablets having weight of 60 grams quantities of contraband were recovered from his possession. Consequently, a case was registered. On interrogation, the accused Ajay disclosed that he had purchased the contraband from co-accused Mohit, who in turn had purchased it from co-accused Paras @ Pinchu on demarcation, co-accused Paras @ Pinchu and co-accused Vimal Kaushik were apprehended from a medical store and 520 Alprazolam tables weighting 52 grams were recovered; the batch number of the aforesaid Alprazolam is same as that of Alprazolam tablets recovered from the co-accused Ajay. Similarly, on 12.01.2025, 225 Tramadol capsules weighing 105 grams were recovered from the rented accommodation of co-accused Kameshwar. As per his disclosure statement, he stated that he had purchased the contraband from co-accused Paras, who in turn had purchased the same from the accused Raj Kumar (petitioner herein). The recovered substances were seized in accordance with due legal procedure.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has iterated that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case solely on the basis of the disclosure statement made by co-accused Paras Ahuja @ Pinchu, from whom no recovery of contraband has been effected. Learned counsel has further iterated that the alleged recovery in the present case pertains to an intermediate quantity, therefore the rigors of Section 37 of the NDPS Act are not attracted. Learned counsel has further iterated that no recovery, either of any narcotic substance or any other incriminating material, has been effected from the petitioner. Furthermore, there is no independent corroborative evidence linking the petitioner to the alleged offence and his name does not find mention in the FIR. The only basis for implicating the petitioner is the unsubstantiated disclosure statement of the co-accused. To buttress his arguments, learned counsel has placed reliance on the judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court titled as Vijay Singh vs. State of Haryana (SLP (Crl.) No.1266/2023), State (NCB) Bengaluru vs. Pallulabid Ahmad Arimutta & Anr., 2022(1) RCR (Criminal) 762, Tofan Singh vs. State of Tamil Nadu, AIR 2020 SC 5592, and Smt. Naimunisha vs. State of Gujarat, NCB, 2024 INSC 290 to contend that disclosure statements unless leading to recovery are inadmissible in evidence. Learned counsel has emphasized that co-accused namely Sanjan Singh, has been granted the concession of anticipatory bail by this Court vide order dated 30.07.2025 passed in CRM-M-34442-2025 (Annexure P-3) and case of the petitioner stands on a better footing since he has clean antecedents unlike co-accused Sanjan Singh who i