*****

JASJIT SINGH BEDI, J. (Oral)

The prayer in the present petition under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) is for the grant of regular bail to the petitioner in case FIR No.119 dated 25.06.2021 under Sections 22(b), 61 and 85 of the NDPS Act (Section 29 of NDPS Act added later on), registered at Police Station Sadar Faridkot, District Faridkot.

The brief facts of the case are that one Sajan (since granted the concession of regular bail vide order dated 31.05.2024, Annexure P-2) and Manga (since granted the concession of regular bail vide order dated 04.07.2024, Annexure P-3) were apprehended with 980 tablets of Tramadol Hydrochloride. On their arrest, they disclosed the name of the present petition-Jagroop Singh.

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 figured in the disclosure statement of his co-accused/Manga and Sajan which has little evidentiary value. 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, wherein it has been held that the accused can be granted the concession of regular bail where he has been named in the disclosure statement of his co-accused and there is no other corroborative evidence against the accused. He contends that the petitioner is involved in one other case bearing FIR No.51/2021 dated 17.06.2021 under Sections 22C, 29, 61, 85 of the NDPS Act and Sections 420, 467, 468 and 471 of IPC, Police Station Sadiq. As the petitioner is in custody since 23.08.2022 and 04 prosecution witnesses yet remain to be examined, the Trial of the present case is not likely to be concluded anytime soon. Therefore, he is entitled to the concession of bail, moreso, when two co-accused/Manga and Sajan have been granted the concession of bail.

The learned counsel for the State, on the other hand, contends that the petitioner is a habitual offender with one other case registered against him vide FIR No.51/2021 dated 17.06.2021. He further contends that in view of the serious nature of allegations levelled against the petitioner, he is not entitled to the concession of bail. He, however, concedes that the petitioner is named in the disclosure statement of the arrested accused, is in custody since 23.08.2022, that 04 prosecution witnesses still remain to be examined and that two co-accused have been granted the concession of bail.

I have heard the learned counsel for the parties.

The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Haryana Versus Samarth Kumar (supra), 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-Dine