State of Haryana v. Mr. Neeraj Poswal, AAG, Haryana

Present: Mr. Sushil Sheoran, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Neeraj Poswal, AAG, Haryana. **** Manisha Batra, J. (Oral)

#1. The instant petition has been filed by the petitioner under Section 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for grant of regular bail to him in case arising out of FIR No.663 dated 30.12.2024 registered under Sections 20-B (ii) (C), 27-A and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act (for short “NDPS Act”) at Police Station Bhiwani Sadar, District Bhiwani.

#2. As per the allegations, on 30.12.2024, on receipt of a secret information to the effect that the accused Kuldeep @ Somi was indulged in the business of sale of intoxicating substances and had stored huge quantity of the same in his house and that the said contraband could be recovered from his house, a raiding party was formed which reached at the house of the accused Kuldeep @ Somi. He was found standing outside his house and was apprehended. After completion of due formalities, his premises were checked and 10 plastic bags containing total 51 KGs 834 Grams of Ganja were recovered from the same which was taken into possession by the Police. The accused Kuldeep @ Somi was CRM-M-24498-2026 (O&M) -2- formally arrested.

#3. As per the further allegations, the accused Kuldeep @ Somi suffered disclosure statement on the basis of which co-accused Vikram Kum along with along with other persons were nominated in this case and arrested. They too suffered disclosure statements admitting their involvement in the crime. During the course of further investigation, bank account detail of co-accused Vikram Kumar was collected and it was found that an amount of Rs.70,000/- was transferred by him in the bank account of Manju i.e. mother of co-accused Rahul Sana. The call detail records of cellphones of the accused Kuldeep @ Somi, Vikram son of Maida Ram, petitioner Karusana Khara and Vikram Kumar were also collected and it was revealed that they were in contact with each other during the period from

17.12.2024 to 28.12.2024. On the basis of the same, the petitioner was nominated in this case and was arrested on 07.01.2025. Investigation now stands concluded.

#4. It is argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that he has been falsely implicated in this case on the basis of the disclosure statement of the co- accused which cannot be considered to be admissible in evidence. He was not named in the FIR. No recovery has been effected from him. He is not required for further investigation. Trial will take considerable time to conclude. His involvement in one more case of similar nature cannot be considered to be a reason for denying him bail in the present case. No useful purpose would be served by detaining him in custody anymore. The co-accused Vikram Kumar, Virender @ Biru, Rahul @ Sana and Vikram @ Bakra have already been extended benefit of bail by this Court. On parity, he too deserves to be extended the same benefit. It is, therefore, argued that the petition deserves to be allowed.

#5. Reply and the custody certificate of the petitioner have been filed. CRM-M-24498-2026 (O&M) -3- Learned State counsel has argued that the allegations against the petitioner are serious in nature. He is a habitual offender and is involved in one more cases under the NDPS Act. There are chances of his committing similar offences or absconding if extended benefit of bail. The petitioner and the co-accused were in contact with each other from 17.12.2024 to 28.12.2024. It is, therefore, argued that the petition does not deserve to be extended the benefit of bail.

#6. This Court has heard the rival submissions made by learned counsel for the parties at considerable length.

#7. The petitioner has been nominated in this case on the basis of the disclosure statement made by the co-accused. No recovery has been effected from him. Though, as per the status report, some call detail records showing the fact that the petitioner and the co-accused were in continuous contact with each other through their cellphones, however, in the absence of transcript of the said call detail records, no inference as to the petitioner being involved in the business of sale of contraband can be drawn. The petitioner is in custody for over a period of 01 year, 06 months and 09 days. Though he is shown to be involved in one more case of similar nature but that alone cannot be made to be a reason for denying him bail in this case. 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 has been effected from the petitioner. The petitioner was arrested on

07.01.2025. Investigation has been completed. Conclusion of trial would take considerable time. The co-accused have already been granted concession of bail by this Court. Keeping in view the aforesaid facts and circumstances, this Court is of CRM-M-24498-2026 (O&M) -4- the considered opinion that no useful purpose would be served by keeping the petitioner in custody anymore. Accordingly, the petition is allowed and the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail, subject to his furnishing personal bonds and surety bonds by two sureties to the satisfaction of the trial Court/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. (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 address where he would be residing after release and shall not change the same without informing the concerned IO/SHO. (v) the petitioner shall upon his release give his mobile phone number to concerned IO/SHO and shall keep his mobile phone switched on all times. (vi) the petitioner shall appear before the IO/SHO on the first Monday of every alternate month at 11:00 AM till conclusion of trial.

#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 made clear that any observation made herein above is only for the purpose of deciding the present petition and the same shall have no bearing on the merits of the case.

17.07.2026 Waseem R. Ansari Waseem R. Ansari Waseem R. Ansari Waseem R. Ansari Whether speaking/reasoned Whether reportable (MANISHA BATRA) JUDGE Yes/No Yes/No