IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-55834-2025 (O&M)

Date of decision: 10.02.2026 VIJAY KUMAR ….Petitioner Versus STATE OF HARYANA ....Respondent CORAM:- HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE RUPINDERJIT CHAHAL Present:- Mr. Abhimanu, 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.40 dated 13.02.2025 registered under Sections 20 and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, at Police Station Sarai Khawaja, District Faridabad.

2. Brief facts of the present case, as per the prosecution, are that on 13.02.2025, SI Udham Singh, along with his fellow police officials was on patrolling duty and on the basis of secret information, apprehended two persons, namely, Mohan Chaudhary and Nagina Mahato, who were found in conscious possession of 27.260 kg of Ganja.

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 neither the petitioner was present at the spot nor was named in the FIR. He further argued that during investigation, said co-accused Mohan Chaudhary and Nagina Mahato made disclosure statements alleging purchasing of the recovered contraband from one Bhola Meeya @ Sahib Ali. Pursuant to the disclosure statement of Bhola Meeya @ Sahib Ali, two other persons namely Rangeela and Sabina were arrested. Both of them also suffered disclosure statements, wherein the name of one Phoolmati surfaced. It is further contended that the present petitioner was nominated as an accused solely on the basis of the disclosure statement made by the said co-accused Phoolmati. Apart from the said 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. No recovery is to be effected from him. Learned counsel further submits that co-accused Shabina Khatun @ Sabina Khatun and Phoolmati @ Phulmati Devi have already been granted the concession of regular bail by this Court vide order dated 25.09.2025 and 30.09.2025 in CRM-M-47409-2025 and CRM-M-54409-2025 respectively. Moreover, the petitioner has clean antecedents as he is not involved in any other case. The petitioner is in custody since 04.03.2025. The investigation in the case is complete and challan also stands presented. 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. Notice of motion.

5. Learned State counsel who has appeared on advance notice has filed the custody certificate of the petitioner, which is taken on record. He 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 effected from co-accused falls under the commercial quantity. However, he has not controverted the fact that the petitioner is first time offender as he is not involved in any other case.

6. 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.

7. 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