IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-65048-2025 Date of decision: 09.02.2026 MEHARBAN SINGH ….Petitioner Versus STATE OF HARYANA ....Respondent CORAM:- HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE RUPINDERJIT CHAHAL Present:- Mr. Satnam Singh Gill, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Parveen Kumar Aggarwal, Addl. A.G. Haryana.

..…

RUPINDERJIT CHAHAL, J. (ORAL)

1. Prayer in the instant petition filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 is for grant of regular bail to the petitioner in case FIR No.385 dated 07.07.2025, registered under Sections 21(c), 22(c), 25 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, (Sections 27A of the NDPS Act and 347(1) BNS, 2023 added later on) at Police Station Assandh, District Karnal.

2. Brief facts of the present case are that as per the prosecution, on 07.07.2025, ASI Khemchand, along with his fellow police officials was on a patrolling duty and on the basis of secret information, apprehended one Parveen Kumar, who was found in conscious possession of 11940 intoxicant tablets. During further investigation more intoxicant tablets were recovered from the said co-accused thereby totalling 25740 intoxicant tablets.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case and he has no concern with the said offence. He argued that the petitioner was neither present at the spot nor was named in the FIR. It has also been contended that the present petitioner was nominated as an accused on the basis of disclosure statement made by co-accused Parveen Kumar. Apart from the disclosure statement, there is no other evidence to connect the petitioner with the offence in question and it is a trite law that disclosure statement of co- accused during his custodial interrogation is not admissible in evidence. No recovery is to be effected from him. The petitioner is in custody since 12.07.2025. The investigation in this case is complete, challan has been presented and charges have also been framed. Out of total 26 prosecution witnesses, none been examined till date. He further submits that trial will take a long time to conclude and no useful purpose would be served by keeping him behind bars. Therefore, it is urged that the petition deserves to be allowed.

4. On the other hand, learned State counsel has filed the custody certificate and status report in the matter, which is taken on record and while referring to the same, learned State counsel has vehemently opposed the prayer for grant of bail by submitting that the offence committed by the petitioner is serious in nature. He has further submitted that recovery of alleged contraband in the present case falls under the commercial quantity. 5. A specific query was raised by this Court to learned State counsel as to whether apart from the disclosure statement, any material has been found during investigation to connect the petitioner with the recovered contraband, to which he answered that there is nothing else to connect the petitioner with the recovered contraband.

6. As far as the argument of learned counsel for the petitioner regarding nomination of accused on the basis of disclosure statement is concerned, it would be apposite to refer herein to a judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court titled as ‘Tofan Singh vs. State of Tamil Nadu, AIR 2020 Supreme Court 5592’, relevant whereof reads as under:

"155. We answer the reference by stating: (i) That the officers who are invested with powers under section 53 of the NDPS Act are "police officers within the meaning of section 25 of the Evidence Act, as a result of which any confessional statement made to them would be barred under the provisions of section 25 of the Evidence Act, and cannot be taken into account in order to convict an accused under the NDPS Act (ii) That a statement recorded under section 67 of the NDPS Act cannot be used as a confessional statement in the trial of an offence under the NDPS ACT".

7. More recen