JASJIT SINGH BEDI, J.

****

The prayer in this 2nd 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.168 dated 19.04.2024 registered under Sections 15(c) and 29 of the NDPS Act at Police Station Dabawali Sadar, Dabawali.

2. The brief facts of the case are that Hoshiar Singh (granted bail vide order dated 06.08.2025 passed in CRM-M-20236-2025) son of Shri Bhawar Singh and Gyarsi Lal @ Garsi Lal (granted bail vide order dated 06.08.2025 passed in CRM-M-55988-2025) son of Surja Ram were apprehended while they were driving a trucking bearing No.RJ-09GC/0219 along with 70 Kgs poppy husk.

3. The arrested accused Hoshiar Singh and Gyarsi Lal @ Garsi Lal named one Gobind Singh @ Gobindo (granted bail vide order dated 06.08.2025 passed in CRM-M-54925-2024) son of Mamraj Singh @ Mamra as the person who had handed over the truck along with the contraband to them.

On 02.06.2024, Gobind Singh @ Gobindo son of Mamraj Singh @ Mamra was arrested. On 03.06.2024, he suffered his disclosure statement admitting to have committed the offence in question. He suffered yet another disclosure statement demarcating the place where accused Hemraj @ Pappu handed over truck bearing No.RJ-09GB/4653 along with the contraband and where he loaded the contraband from Rajasthan to truck bearing No.RJ09GB/4653 due to the technical fault in truck bearing No.RJ09-GC/0219. He also got recovered Rs.10,000/- from his house.

During investigation it came on record that Uday Lal Dangi (petitioner) and Hemraj @ Pappu were indulging in the sale, purchase and transportation of the narcotics substances along with the other accused. It also transpired that both the trucks were registered in the name of the petitioner and that Gobind used to transport the contraband on the asking of the petitioner and Hemraj @ Pappu thus, establishing that the accused persons were running a syndicate dabbling in the business of narcotics substances where the petitioner and Hemraj @ Pappu were the main suppliers.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case. He has not been named in the FIR but only in the disclosure statement of some of the arrested accused which has no evidentiary value. Merely because the vehicles were in his name does not establish his culpability as the drivers were dealing in contraband in their individual capacity. As the petitioner is in custody since 28.08.2025 but none of the 26 prosecution witnesses has been examined so far, he is entitled to the grant of bail even though there is one other case registered against him under the NDPS Act. 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.

5. The learned counsel for the respondent-State, on the other hand, contends that both the vehicles used in the commission of the offence stand in the name of the petitioner. It does not stand to reason that the petitioner was unaware of the acts of his co-accused/drivers. During the course of investigation it has come on rec