Sonu v. State of Haryana

Present : Mr. Puneet Kumar Bansal, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. P. K. Garg, DAG, Haryana. * * * SUKHVINDER KAUR , J. : Prayer in the present petition, filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023 is for grant of regular bail to the petitioner, in case FIR No.177 dated 02.06.2025, under Section 21-B of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as – NDPS Act), registered at Police Station Tosham, District Bhiwani. As per prosecution case, co-accused Roshan was found in possession of 13.18 grams of heroin. The petitioner was nominated as an accused in the present case on the basis of disclosure statement of the said co-accused, who stated that he had purchased the recovered contraband from the petitioner. MONIKA 2025.11.04 18:29 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that no recovery CRM-M-39727-2025 2 had been effected from the petitioner and he is not connected with the offence in the present case.

The petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case only on the basis of disclosure statement of aforesaid co- accused, which is not admissible in law. He prayed that custodial interrogation of the petitioner is not required and he is ready and willing to join the investigation and the present petition be allowed. Learned State counsel opposed the present petition and submitted that there is specific allegation against the petitioner that he had supplied the contraband to the co-accused namely Roshan, from whom the alleged recovery in question had been effected. The petitioner was specifically named in the disclosure statement of co-accused and as such he is not entitled to the concession of bail. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the case file. As per the allegations in the disclosure statement, co-accused alleged to have purchased the recovered contraband from the petitioner.