Muddin v. State of Haryana

Present:- Mr. Himanshu Joshi, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Neeraj Poswal, AAG, Haryana, for the respondent-State. *** MANISHA BATRA, J. (Oral)

#1. The instant one is the second petition as filed by the petitioner under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (For short “BNSS”) seeking regular bail in case arising out of FIR No.274 dated

19.07.2023 registered under Sections 20(b) (ii) (C) and 29 of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short ‘NDPS Act’), Sections 201 and 216 of IPC and Sections 282 and 253 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (For short “BNS”) at Police Station Bilaspur Gurugram, District Gurugram, Haryana. The previous petition as filed by him, has been dismissed as withdrawn.

#2. As per the allegations, on 19.07.2023, on the basis of a secret CRM-M No.16491 of 2026 -2- information, accused Sabir Khan was apprehended and recovery of 3 quintals and 59 Kgs. of ganja was effected from the truck driven by him. He was formally arrested. On interrogation, he suffered disclosure statement on the basis of which accused Ajay, Ajeet, Jai Ram and Jakir were nominated as accused. The accused Jakir on his arrest also suffered disclosure statement on the basis of which the petitioner was nominated as additional accused on the allegation that an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- had been given by him to accused Jakir for the purpose of sale/purchase of contraband. The petitioner was arrested on 23.12.2024. Investigation now stands concluded.

#3. It is argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that he has been falsely implicated in this case. He is in custody for a period of about 01 year and 07 months. He is on bail in another case as registered against him. No recovery has been effected from him. There are no chances of conclusion of trial in near future as only 03 out of 26 prosecution witnesses have been examined. His further incarceration would not serve any useful purpose. The co-accused Sabir Khan from whom recovery has been effected, has been extended benefit of bail. His case is even at a better footing. It is, therefore, argued that the petition deserves to be allowed.

#4. Per contra, learned State counsel has argued that taking into consideration the gravity of the offences as committed by him, the petitioner does not deserve to be extended benefit of bail and that the petition being the second one, is not maintainable.

#5. This Court has heard the rival submissions made by learned CRM-M No.16491 of 2026 -3- counsel for the parties at considerable length.

#6. The well settled proposition of law is that the Court while considering an application for grant of bail has to keep certain factors in mind, such as, whether there is a prima facie case or reasonable ground to believe that the accused has committed the offence; circumstances which are peculiar to the accused; likelihood of the offence being repeated; the nature and gravity of the accusation; severity of the punishment in the event of conviction; the danger of accused absconding or fleeing, if released on bail and reasonable apprehension of the witnesses being threatened. The period of incarceration is also relevant fact that is to be considered. It is also unequivocally established that, to be granted bail, the accused charged with offence under the provisions of NDPS Act must fulfill the conditions stipulated in Section 37 of the NDPS Act.

#7. So far as the question of maintainability of this petition being second petition is concerned, it may be mentioned that an accused has a right to make successive applications for grant of bail, and it is the duty of the Court, while entertaining such a subsequent bail application, to consider the reasons and grounds on which the earlier bail petition was rejected. The fresh grounds which persuade the Court to take a view different from the one taken in the earlier application are also required to be recorded. The previous petition as filed by the petitioner was dismissed as withdrawn on 11.12.2025. Therefore, a period of more than 7½ months has elapsed but there is not much progress in trial as only 03 out of 26 prosecution witnesses have been examined. This fact in the opinion of this CRM-M No.16491 of 2026 -4- case is a fresh ground to consider the petition. It is well settled proposition of law that grant of bail on account of delay in trial and long period of incarceration is to be considered in the light of Section 37 of the NDPS Act. The case of the prosecution is that, the name of the petitioner was disclosed by the co-accused Jakir. In Tofan Singh Vs. State of Tamil Nadu, (2021) 4 SCC 1, it was observed by Hon’ble Apex Court that the disclosure statements made under Section 67 of NDPS Act, are inadmissible in evidence unless corroborated by independent material. While the veracity of the disclosure statement against the petitioner will be tested during the course of trial, however, at this stage, it cannot be ignored that no recovery was ever effected from the petitioner. The petitioner is in custody since

23.12.2024. The trial will take time. The object of jail is to secure the appearance of the accused during the trial and it can neither be punitive nor preventive and the deprivation of liberty has been considered as a punishment. As per the discussion made above, this Court is of the considered opinion that a case for release of the petitioner is made out. Accordingly, the petition is allowed and the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail subject to his furnishing personal/surety bonds to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court/Chief Judicial Magistrate/ Duty Magistrate concerned and on the following conditions:- (i) the petitioner shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case or tamper with the evidence of the case in any manner whatsoever. CRM-M No.16491 of 2026 -5- (ii) he shall not leave the country under any circumstance without permission of the learned trial Court. (iii) he shall appear before the learned trial Court as and when directed. (iv) he shall provide his permanent address as well as present address before the learned trial Court at the time of furnishing of bonds and shall not change the same without informing the trial Court. (v) the petitioner shall give details of his mobile phone number(s) to the learned trial Court at the time of furnishing of bonds and in case, any change in his mobile phone number takes place, then he shall inform about the same to the learned trial Court in advance and shall keep his mobile phone switch on all times.

#8. In the event of there being any FIR/complaint lodged against the petitioner, it shall be open to the respondent to seek redressal by filing an application seeking cancellation of bail.

#9. It is, however, clarified the observations made hereinabove shall not be construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case and shall not influence the outcome of the trial.

23.07.2026 Manju/Parveen Sharma (MANISHA BATRA) JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned Whether reportable Yes/No Yes/No