MANOJ KUMAR @ MANOJ v. STATE OF HARYANA

Mr. Kshitij Bharti, Assistant Advocate General, Haryana. **** SHALINI SINGH NAGPAL J. (Oral)

#1. Petitioner seeks anticipatory bail in FIR No.84 dated

29.04.2026 under Sections 21-B/61/85 of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, Police Station Nathu Sarai Chopta, District Sirsa, Haryana. This is the first petition for anticipatory bail.

#2. On 11.06.2026, following order was passed: “1. This is the first petition under Section 482 BNSS, 2023 (Section 438 Cr.P.C.) for grant of Anticipatory Bail to the petitioner in case bearing FIR No. 84 dated

29.04.2026 (Annexure P-1) under Sections 21B/61/85 of NDPS Act registered at Police Station Nathu Sarai Chopta, District Sirsa, Haryana.

#2. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case. He further contends that the petitioner was nominated as an accused in the instant FIR only on the basis of 2nd disclosure statement of co-accused, namely, Amit Kumar @ Mittu. It CRM-M-33451-2026 (O&M) -2- has been further contended that nothing has been recovered from the present petitioner as whatever recovery i.e. 25.033 grams of heroin, was effected, that was from above-said co- accused. It has been further contended that except the disclosure statement, no other evidence is available with the prosecution to connect the petitioner with the alleged commission of the offence. It has been further submitted that the quantity of alleged contraband falls within the category of intermediate quantity. Learned counsel further submits that the petitioner is ready and willing to join the investigation and cooperate with the investigating officer concerned.

#4. Notice of motion. On the asking of the Court, Mr. Vaibhav Sharma, AAG, Haryana accepts notice on behalf of the respondent-State and opposes the present petition on the ground that co-accused, Amit Kumar @ Mittu, in his disclosure statement, stated that the alleged contraband was purchased by the petitioner and supplied the same to him for sale. He further submits that the petitioner is a habitual offender as he is involved in two other criminal cases.

#5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

#6. It is the admitted fact that the recovery in question has already been effected from co-accused; the quantity of alleged contraband falls within the category of intermediate quantity; nothing has been recovered from the CRM-M-33451-2026 (O&M) -3- present petitioner. The petitioner has been implicated as an accused in the instant FIR solely on the basis of 2nd disclosure statement of co-accused, Amit Kumar @ Mittu. Furthermore, except for the disclosure statement, there is no other incriminating material with the prosecution to connect the petitioner with the alleged commission of the offence.

#7. The evidentiary value of a disclosure statement of a co-accused, in the absence of recovery or corroboration, is weak in view of the settled position of law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in ‘Vijay Singh vs. The State of Haryana’, bearing Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No.(s) 1266/2023 decided on 17.05.2023' has held as under: "The petitioner is alleged to have committed offences under Sections 15 and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter called the NDPS Act)". His application for anticipatory bail was rejected by the High Court. The allegations in the FIR are that 1.7 Kg of Poppy Straw (Doda Post) was recovered from the co-accused. The petitioner concededly was not present at the spot but was named by the co- accused. That apart there is no other material to implicate the petitioner. The prosecution urges that another case with allegations of commission of offence under the NDPS Act are pending against the petitioner. It is not denied that in those proceedings he was granted bail. Having regard to these circumstances, the petitioner is directed to the enlarged on anticipatory bail, subject to such terms and conditions as the trial Court may impose. The petition is allowed.” CRM-M-33451-2026 (O&M) -4-

#8. As regards the submission of learned State counsel that petitioner is involved in 02 other criminal cases, reference is placed upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in ‘Maulana Mohd. Amir Rashadi Vs. State of U.P. and another’, 2012 (2) SCC 382 in which, it is held that the facts and circumstances of the present case are to be seen while deciding a bail application and the bail application of the petitioner cannot be rejected solely on the ground that the petitioner is involved in other/another cases. The relevant portion of the said judgment is reproduced hereinbelow:- "As observed by the High Court, merely on the basis of criminal antecedents, the claim of the second respondent cannot be rejected. In other words, it is the duty of the Court to find out the role of the accused in the case in which he has been charged and other circumstances such as possibility of fleeing away from the jurisdiction of the Court etc."

#9. In view of the discussions made hereinbefore, as well as the undertaking given before this Court by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is ready and willing to join the investigation and cooperate with the Investigating Officer concerned, this Court is of the view that the petitioner deserves the concession of interim bail.

#10. Accordingly, the petitioner is directed to be released on interim bail subject to his joining investigation and reporting to the Investigating Officer concerned within one week from today, on furnishing of personal/security bonds to the satisfaction of Arresting/Investigating Officer. CRM-M-33451-2026 (O&M) -5- The petitioner shall also abide by the terms and conditions as envisaged under Section 482(2) of BNSS, 2023.

#11. List on 14.07.2026.”

#3. Learned State counsel on instructions from PSI Somveer submits that petitioner has joined investigation and is no longer required for custodial interrogation.

#4. Petitioner has joined investigation pursuant to order of this Court dated 11.06.2026 and his further custodial interrogation is not required. In the circumstances of the case but without commenting on merits, the petition is allowed and order dated dated 11.06.2026, granting interim bail to the petitioner, is made absolute, subject to the conditions laid down in Section 482(2) of Bharatiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023.

#5. Pending CRM(s), if any, are also disposed of accordingly.

14.07.2026 Ajay Goswami (SHALINI SINGH NAGPAL) JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned Whether reportable Yes/No Yes/No