IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Sr.No.226 CRM-M-18068-2026 Decided on : 14.05.2026 Man Singh ...... Petitioner Versus State of Haryana ...... Respondent CORAM : HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE RUPINDERJIT CHAHAL ***

Present : Mr. Dushyant Saharan, Advocate for the petitioner.

Ms. Shaveta Sanghi, DAG, 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.424 dated 07.12.2025, registered under Sections 2(C) of the Narcotic Drugs & Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, at Police Station Hodal, District Palwal.

2. Brief facts of the present case as per the prosecution are that on 07.12.2025, Sub Inspector Om Parkash alongwith his fellow police officials was on patrolling duty and on the basis of secret information, apprehended co-accused Manish who was found in conscious possession of 621 intoxicant capsules. Initially, the FIR was registered against the said co-

accused.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. He further contends that neither the petitioner was present at the spot nor was named in the FIR, therefore, he has no concern with the said offence. It has also been contended that the petitioner was nominated as an accused on the basis of disclosure statement made by the co-accused. 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. The alleged recovery has already been effected from the co-accused and nothing is to be recovered from the petitioner. The petitioner is in custody since 10.12.2025 and he has clean antecedents as he is not involved in any other case. The investigation in this case is still going on. He further submits that the trial will take a long time to conclude and no useful purpose would be served by keeping the petitioner behind bars. Therefore, it is urged that the petition deserves to be allowed.

4. Learned State counsel has filed the status report as well as custody certificate, which are taken on record. She has vehemently opposed the prayer for grant of bail by submitting that the offence committed by the petitioner is serious in nature. She has further submitted that the recovery of alleged contraband effected from the co-accused in the present case falls under the commercial quantity. However, she has not controverted the fact that the petitioner is the first time offender as he is not involved in any other case.

5. A 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 she answered that there is nothing else to connect the petitioner with the offence.

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 recently, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in a judgment t