An accused involved in multiple NDPS cases is considered a habitual offender, failing to satisfy the twin conditions under Section 37 of the NDPS Act, thus disentitling them to bail regardless of being named primarily through a co-accused's disclosure statement.

****

JASJIT SINGH BEDI, J.

The prayer in this 6th petition under Section 483 of BNSS is for the grant of regular bail in case bearing FIR No.105 dated 04.05.2023 registered under Sections 18(b), 18(c), 29 of NDPS Act at Police Station Sadar Narwana, District Jind, Haryana.

The brief facts of the case are that Rajbir and Dilawar were arrested and found in possession of 6 Kgs. 404 grams of opium. They disclosed the name of Lal Singh (petitioner) as the supplier of the opium. The petitioner who was in Shajapur Jail, Madhya Pradesh was joined in investigation and arrested in the present case.

The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner had 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 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, State of Haryana Versus Samarth Kumar 2022 (3) RCR (Criminal) 991 and 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 in custody since 26.06.2023 none of the 25 prosecution witnesses has been examined so far, he is entitled to the concession of bail even though there were 05 other cases bearing FIR No.10/2022 U/s 8, 18, 29, 60 of NDPS Act P.S. Bhiwani Mandi, Jhalawar, FIR No.166/2021 U/s 29 P.S. Dug, Jhalawar, FIR No.72/2022 U/s 27-A/29 NDPS Rules, 18/61/85 NDPS Act, P.S. Shahzadpur, Ambala, FIR No.37/2022 U/s 15/29/61/85 NDPS Act, P.S. Shahzadpur, Ambala and FIR No.167/2023 U/s 8/15 NDPS Act, P.S. Soyat, Shajapur pending against the petitioner.

The learned counsel for the respondent-State, on the other hand, contends that in view of the serious allegations levelled against the petitioner, he is not entitled to the grant of bail. He is an accused in 05 other cases bearing FIR No.10/2022 U/s 8, 18, 29, 60 of NDPS Act P.S. Bhiwani Mandi, Jhalawar, FIR No.166/2021 U/s 29 P.S. Dug, Jhalawar, FIR No.72/2022 U/s 27-A/29 NDPS Rules, 18/61/85 NDPS Act, P.S. Shahzadpur, Ambala, FIR No.37/2022 U/s 15/29/61/85 NDPS Act, P.S. Shahzadpur, Ambala and FIR No.167/2023 U/s 8/15 NDPS Act, P.S. Soyat, Shajapur. Even otherwise, there are no change in circumstances warranting grant of bail when the 5th bail application of the petitioner came to be withdrawn on 17.09.2025 (Annexure P-7). He, however, concedes that the petitioner is named in the disclosure statement, is in custody since 26.06.2023 and none of the 25 prosecution witnesses has been examined so far.

I have heard the learned counsel for both the parties at length.

The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Haryana Versus Samarth Kumar 2022 (3) RCR (Criminal) 991, 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 S