115 (2^nd case)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of decision: October 28, 2025 Sukhwinder Singh ….Petitioner versus State of Haryana ….Respondent CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL Present:- Mr. Kushager Goyal, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Vishal Singh, AAG Haryana.

*****

SUMEET GOEL, J. (ORAL)

Present petition has been filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short ‘BNSS’) for grant of regular bail to the petitioner in case bearing FIR No.94 dated 16.03.2024, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 15C/ 17B/ 29/ 61/ 85 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short ‘NDPS Act’), at Police Station Ellenabad, Sirsa, Haryana.

2. The gravamen of the FIR in question is that the petitioner is an accused of being involved in an FIR pertaining to NDPS Act involving alleged recovery of 60 kilograms Doda post and 1 kilo 800 grams of opium from co-accused of the petitioner. The petitioner has been nominated in this case on the basis of disclosure of co-accused, namely, Trilok Singh @ Toti.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has iterated that the petitioner is in custody since 20.07.2024. Learned counsel has further submitted that mandatory provisions of the NDPS Act have not scrupulously been complied with, and thus, the prosecution case suffers from inherent defects. Learned counsel has iterated that the trial is delayed and the liability thereof cannot be fastened upon the petitioner. Learned counsel has further iterated that sole basis to array the petitioner as an accused is the disclosure statement of co-accused, namely Trilok Singh @ Toti. Learned counsel has further iterated that the petitioner has suffered incarceration for more than 01 year. Thus, regular bail is prayed for.

4. Learned State counsel has opposed the present petition by arguing that the allegations raised against the petitioner are serious in nature and, thus, he does not deserve the concession of the regular bail. Learned State counsel has further submitted that the instant bail plea is barred by the rigors of Section 37 of the NDPS Act, and thus, the same ought to be dismissed. Learned State counsel seeks to place on record custody certificate dated 28.10.2025 in Court, which is taken on record.

5. I have heard counsel for the rival parties and have gone through the available records of the case.

6. The petitioner was arrested on 20.07.2024 whereinafter investigation was carried out and challan has been presented on 22.08.2024. Total 20 prosecution witnesses have been cited, out of which, only 01 has been examined till date. Indubitably, conclusion of the trial will take long time. The petitioner has been implicated as an accused in the FIR in question solely on the basis of disclosure statement of Trilok Singh @ Toti. As per prosecution version, there is no other material available to connect the petitioner with the contraband except for the said disclosure statement. It is pertinent to note that such disclosure statements, in the absence of corroborative evidence hold limited evidentiary value and cannot be sole basis for implicating the petitioner. The reliance on this unsubstantiated statement raises serious doubts about the fairness and objectivity of the investigation. It is not in dispute that the petitioner was not present at the spot. The veracity and weightage required to be attached to the disclosure statement made by the co-accused will be fully tested at the time of trial. The rival contentions raised at Bar give rise to debatable issues, which shall be ratiocinated upon during the course of trial. This Court does not deem it appropriate to delve deep into these rival contentions, at this stage, lest it may prejudice the trial. Nothing tangible has been brought forward to indicate the likelihood of the petitioner absconding from the process of justice or interfering with the prosecution evidence.

6.1. At this juncture, it would be apposite to refer to