IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

245 CRM-M-7329-2026 (O&M)

Date of decision : 12.02.2026 Ravinder @Ravi ..... Petitioner VERSUS State of Haryana ..... Respondent CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SURYA PARTAP SINGH Present : Mr. Manoj Tanwar, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Birender Bikram Attrey, Addl. A.G. Haryana.

*****

SURYA PARTAP SINGH, J.

This is first petition for bail filed by the petitioner with regard to FIR No.418 dated 06.07.2024 under Sections 21, 27A and 29 of ‘Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act’, hereinafter being referred to as ‘NDPS Act’, Police Station City Rohtak, District Rohtak.

2. The abovementioned FIR came into being at the instance of ‘ASI Vikas’, who had reported that on basis of a tip-off, given by a reliable source, accused Lakhan was intercepted and from his possession, 15 gms of Heroin was recovered. It is the case of the prosecution that pursuant to abovementioned recovery, formal FIR of this case was lodged and the investigation taken up. According to the prosecution, during the course of investigation when the accused Lakhan was interrogated, he suffered a disclosure statement, nominating therein another accused, namely Naveen and thereafter when accused Naveen was interrogated, he, too, suffered a disclosure statement, nominating therein the present petitioner.

3. Notice of motion

4. Mr. Birender Bikram Attrey, Addl. A.G. Haryana appears on behalf of respondent-State. Hence service of notice upon the State is hereby dispensed with. The learned State Counsel has filed custody certificate of the petitioner. The same be taken on record. No formal reply has been filed by the State. However the learned State counsel has orally oppose the present petition.

5. Heard.

6. The record has been perused carefully.

7. To deal with given fact-situation pertaining to present case, the principles of law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of ‘Vijay Singh Vs. The State of Haryana’ 2023 SCC OnlineSC 1235 are relevant. In the abovementioned case, the petitioner was not present on the spot at the time of recovery and he was implicated solely on the basis of statement of co-accused. The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the abovementioned case afforded the benefit of bail to the accused.

8. Similarly, in ‘Surender Kumar Khanna Vs. Intelligence Officer Directorate of Revenue Intelligence’ 2018(8) SCC 271, it has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India that the disclosure statement of co- accused is inadmissible against another accused, as the disclosure statement is not a substantive piece of evidence against other accused.

9. Similar principle has been laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of ‘Preet Kamal Vs. State of Punjab’, 2018(4) RCR (Criminal) 938, wherein it has been held that the disclosure statement of an accused can be used only against the person making the same, and not against the co-accused.

10. In ‘Tofan Singh Vs. State of Tamil Nadu’, 2021(4) SCC 1 also, it has been observed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India that confessional statement of accused recorded under Section 67 of NDPS Act cannot be admitted in evidence, as a confession.

11. If the facts and circumstances of the present case are analyzed in the light of above-mentioned principles of law, it transpires that:-

(i) that the petitioner is already in custody for a period of more than nine months;

(ii) that the only evidence available against the petitioner is the disclosure statement of his co-accused, and there is a question mark with regard to credibility & admissibility of above-mentioned statement in evidence, as the same was recorded when the maker of it was already in police custody. Since pursuant to above-mentioned disclosure statement no recovery or discovery of fact took place, the same is prima facie hit by Section-23 of Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam;

(iii) that of the petitioner does not figure in the FIR;

(v) that co-accused Lakhan and Naveen have already been accorded