Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2026 Supreme(Online)(P&H) 81646

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Jasjit Singh Bedi, J
Hem Raj – Appellant
Versus
State Of Haryana – Respondent
CRM-M-21560-2026

Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Vikramjeet Singh, Surendra Pant
For the Respondents: Geeta Rani

In cases under the NDPS Act, where an accused repeatedly faces criminal charges, they act as a habitual offender; consequently, the court cannot be satisfied that the accused will not commit a further offence, thereby failing the twin conditions required for bail under Section 37.

Headnote:(A) Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 - S. 37 - Bail - Petitioner named in disclosure statement of co-accused - Petitioner involved in two other cases under the NDPS Act - Cumulative effect of involvement in multiple cases indicates habitual offender status - Satisfaction of twin conditions under S. 37 of NDPS Act not met - Bail denied. (Paras 12, 13)

Facts of the case:
The petitioner sought regular bail in a case registered under the NDPS Act. The petitioner was nominated as an accused solely based on a disclosure statement provided by a co-accused. The prosecution pointed out that the petitioner had prior criminal antecedents, specifically two other registered cases under the NDPS Act, one of which resulted in a conviction.

Findings of Court:
The Court observed that while mere naming in a disclosure statement might allow for bail in certain circumstances, the presence of multiple FIRs over a significant period of time suggests the petitioner is a habitual offender. Consequently, the Court held that the petitioner could not satisfy the twin conditions mandated by S. 37 of the NDPS Act regarding the likelihood of committing further offences while on bail.

Issues: Whether an accused named solely in a disclosure statement is entitled to bail despite having significant criminal antecedents under the same Act.

Ratio Decidendi: When there are multiple FIRs against an accused over a significant period, the applicant fails to satisfy the twin conditions under S. 37 of the NDPS Act, disqualifying them from bail as a habitual offender.

Result: Petition dismissed.

Table of Content
1. summary of fir and procedural background of the case. (Para 1 , 2)
2. parties argument regarding implication based on disclosure and criminal history. (Para 3 , 4)
3. court's analysis of judicial precedents regarding disclosure and the impact of multiple prior criminal cases on bail eligibility under s. 37 ndps. (Para 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13)
4. order dismissing the bail petition based on criminal antecedents. (Para 14 , 15)

JASJIT SINGH BEDI, J.

The prayer in the present petition under Section 483 BNSS, 2023 ( Section 439 Cr.P.C. ) is for the grant of regular bail in case bearing FIR No.168 dated 19.04.2024 under Sections 15C /29/25/61/85 of the NDPS Act, 1985 registered at Police Station Sadar Dabwali, District Sirsa, Haryana.

2. The brief facts of the case are that on 19.04.2024, Hoshiyar Singh (since granted the concession of regular bail by this Court vide order Annexure P-4) and Gyarshi Lal @ Garsi (since granted the concession of anticipatory bail vide order dated 06.08.2025 passed in CRM-M-55988-2024) were arrested for keeping 70 kilogram Doda Post in their conscious possession in the area of police station Sadar Dabwali after complying with the provisions of NDPS Act. They disclosed that the recovered contraband was given by Gobind Singh (since granted the concession of anticipatory bail vide order dated 06.08.2025 passed in CRM-M-54925-2024) for sale who was arrested in this case on 02.06.2024. He disclosed vide his disclosure statement that the recovered contraband was given to him by the petitioner Hem Raj for sale which was loaded in truck No.RJ-09GC-0219 belonging to Uday Lal Dangi. The petitioner was arrested on 25.09.2025.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner had been falsely implicated in the present case. He contends that the name of the petitioner figured in the disclosure statement of his co-accused/Gobind Singh. 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 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. As the petitioner is in custody since 25.09.2025 but none of the 26 prosecution witnesses have been examined so far, he is entitled to the concession of bail even though there are 02 other cases under the NDPS Act against him, moreso, when three co-accused, namely, Gyarshi Lal @ Garsi, Gobind Singh and Hoshiyar Singh have been granted the concession of either anticipatory bail or regular bail by this Court.

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. He is involved in 02 other cases under the NDPS Act. She, however, concedes that the petitioner is in custody since 25.09.2025, that none of the 26 prosecution witnesses has been examined so far and that three co-accused have been granted the concession of either the anticipatory bail or regular bail.

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

6. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State o

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2026 Supreme(Online)(P&H) 81646

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARHJasjit Singh Bedi, JHem Raj – AppellantVersusState Of Haryana – RespondentCRM-M-21560-2026

In cases under the NDPS Act, where an accused repeatedly faces criminal charges, they act as a habitual offender; consequently, the court cannot be satisfied that the accused will not commit a further offence, thereby failing the twin conditions required for bail under Section 37.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Jasjit Singh Bedi, J
Hem Raj – Appellant
Versus
State Of Haryana – Respondent
CRM-M-21560-2026