****

JASJIT SINGH BEDI, J.

The prayer in the present petition under Section 483 of BNSS, 2023 (Section 439 Cr.P.C.) is for the grant of regular bail to the petitioner in case bearing FIR No.407 dated 12.12.2025 under Section 21(B) of the NDPS Act (No.61 of 1985) registered at Police Station City, Tohana, District Fatehabad.

2. The brief facts of the case are that Satish Kumar @ Bhajji was apprehended with 07 grams 25 milligrams of heroin. He disclosed the name of the petitioner-Ajay as the seller of the contraband.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case. He contends that the name of the petitioner figures in the disclosure statement of the arrested co-accused/Satish Kumar @ Bhajji. 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 decided on 06.04.2022., wherein it has been held that the accused can be granted the concession of 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 06.01.2026 but none of the 13 prosecution witnesses has been examined so far, the Trial of the present case is not likely to be concluded anytime soon and therefore, he is entitled to the concession of bail even though there are three other cases under the NDPS Act registered against him.

4. 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. In fact, the petitioner is an accused in three other cases bearing FIR No.176/2025 dated 08.05.2025 under Sections 21B, 61, 85 NDPS Act, Police Station City Tohana, Fatehabad, FIR No.17/2023 dated 15.01.2023 under Sections 21A/61/85 NDPS Act, 29 NDPS Act, Police Station City Tohana, Fatehabad and FIR No.431/2025 dated 30.12.2025 under Sections 21B/27A/61/85 NDPS Act, Police Station City Tohana, Fatehabad. He, however, concedes that the petitioner has been in custody since 06.01.2026 and that none of the 13 prosecution witnesses has been examined so far.

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

6. 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 State of Haryana that on the basis of the anticipatory bail granted to the respondents, the Special Court was constrained to grant regular bail even to the main accused-Dinesh Kumar and he jumped bail. Fortunately, the main accused-Dinesh Kumar has again been apprehended. According to the learned Additional Advocate General, the respondent in the second of these appeals is also a habitual o