RAHUL SANA v. STATE OF HAR HARYANA

Judgment

1. The instant petition has been prefe The preferred by the petitioner under Section 483 of Bh of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanh SS”) a Sanhita, 2023 (for short “BNSS”) for grant of regul regular bail in case arising out of F

2024 ut of FIR No.663 dated 30.12.2024 registered under S nder Sections 20-B (II) (C), 27-A and s and A and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Subs c Substances Act (for short “NDPS A adar, DPS Act”) at Police Station Sadar, wani. District Bhiwani.

2. As per the allegations, on 30.12.2 As p 0.12.2024, on receipt of a secret information to the to the effect that the accused Kuldeep n the uldeep @ Somi was indulged in the business of sale o sale of intoxicating substances and ha and had stored huge quantity of the same in his house house and that the said contraband aband could be recovered from his AMIT SHARMA 2026.03.25 19:52 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment. CRM-M-54459- -2025 (O&M) 2 house, a raiding p ding party was formed which reache reached at the house of the accused Kuldeep @ Som Somi. He was found standing nding outside his house and was apprehended. Aft d. After completion of due formalitie malities, his premises were checked and 10 plastic bag ic bags containing total 51 KGs 834 G 834 Grams of Ganja were recovered from the same wh me which was taken into possession ession by the Police. The accused Kuldeep @ Somi w Somi was formally arrested.

3. As per the further allegations, the As p Somi s, the accused Kuldeep @ Somi suffered disclosur closure statement on the basis of whi of which accused Vikram Singh son of Paras, Vikram ikram Singh son of Maida Ram Ram and Virender @ Biru were nominated and ar nd arrested. They too suffered disclos disclosure statements admitting their involvement in th t in the crime. On the disclosure of a re of accused Vikram, the petitioner and co-accused K sed Karusna Khara were nominated

025. inated and arrested on 07.01.2025. During the cours course of further investigation, ban n, bank account detail of accused Vikram son of P of Paras was collected and it wa t of it was found that an amount of Rs.70,000/- was tr was transferred by the said accused d in the bank account of Manju i.e. mother of the of the present petitioner. The call deta f the ll detail records of cellphones of the accused Kuldeep ldeep @ Somi, Vikram son of Paras am, Paras, Vikram son of Maida Ram, Karusana Khara a hara and present petitioner were also e also collected and it was revealed that they were in re in contact with each other during 24 to uring the period from 17.12.2024 to

28.12.2024. The The mobile phone used by the petitio petitioner was found to be registered in the name of his of his father. Investigation now stands stands concluded.

4. It is argued by learned counsel for t It is a l for the petitioner that he has been falsely implicated icated in this case on the basis of the d - f the disclosure statement of the co- accused which can ich cannot be considered to be admiss s not admissible in evidence. He was not AMIT SHARMA 2026.03.25 19:52 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment. CRM-M-54459- -2025 (O&M) 3 named in the FIR. e FIR. No recovery has been effected ffected from him. He is not required for further investi investigation. Trial will take conside His considerable time to conclude. His antecedents are cl are clean. No useful purpose would m in ould be served by detaining him in custody anymore. more. The co-accused Virender @ B r @ Biru has been extended benefit of bail. On parit n parity, he too deserves to be exten It is, extended the same benefit. It is, therefore, argued t gued that the petition deserves to be al o be allowed.

4. Per contra, learned State counsel ha Per c nsel has argued that the allegations against the petitio petitioner are serious in nature. He nd is . He is a habitual offender and is involved in 02 m 02 more cases under NDPS Act. Act. There are chances of his committing simila similar offences or absconding if ex The g if extended benefit of bail. The petitioner and the nd the co-accused were in contact wit 2024 act with each other from 17.12.2024 to 28.12.2024. It

24. It is, therefore, argued that the p to be the petition does not deserve to be extended the benef nefit of bail.

5. This Court has heard the rival submis This C ubmissions made by learned counsel for the parties at co es at considerable length.

6. The petitioner has been nominated in The p f the ated in this case on the basis of the disclosure stateme tatement made by the co-accused Vi Vikram. No recovery has been effected from him m him. Though, as per the status re s atus report, some call detail records showing the fact e fact that the petitioner and the co the co-accused were in continuous contact with each each other through their cellphones e of phones, however, in the absence of transcript of the s f the said call detail records, no infere inference as to the petitioner being involved in the bu the business of sale of contraband can nd can be drawn. It is also a matter of evidence as to w as to whether the transfer of sum of R m of Rs.70,000/- in the bank account AMIT SHARMA 2026.03.25 19:52 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment. CRM-M-54459- -2025 (O&M) 4 of the mother of er of the petitioner by the co-accused ccused can be considered to be drug money or not? T ot? The petitioner is in custody for r 02 dy for over a period of 01 year 02 months and 16 day 16 days. In Tofan Singh Vs. State of 1, te of Tamil Nadu, (2021) 4 SCC 1, it was observed b rved by Hon’ble Apex Court that th at the disclosure statements made under Section 67 o n 67 of NDPS Act, are inadmissible in sible in evidence unless corroborated by independent m ent material. While the veracity of th y of the disclosure statement against the petitioner will er will be tested during the course of ge, it rse of trial, however, at this stage, it cannot be ignored gnored that no recovery has been effe The en effected from the petitioner. The petitioner was arre as arrested on 07.01.2025. There is no tage, re is nothing on record, at this stage, to connect the pet the petitioner either with the subject bject crime or to show that he was connected with the ith the co-accused in any manner at t er at the relevant time. Investigation has been complete mpleted. Conclusion of trial would tak 8 out uld take considerable time as 08 out of the 24 witnesse tnesses have been examined so far. Th far. The co-accused has already been granted concession ssion of bail by this Court. Keeping s and eping in view the aforesaid facts and circumstances, thi es, this Court is of the considered o ered opinion that no useful purpose would be served erved by keeping the petitioner in c r in custody anymore. Taking into consideration the n the above discussed facts but wi but without meaning to make any comments on the n the merits of the case lest the sa the same prejudice the trial in any manner, the petiti petition is allowed and the petitione d on titioner is ordered to be released on bail, subject to his to his furnishing personal and surety b f the urety bonds to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court Court/Chief Judicial Magistrate/Duty /Duty Magistrate concerned.

7. In the event of there being any FIR In the t the y FIR/complaint lodged against the petitioner, it shall t shall be open to the respondent-State g an State to seek redressal by filing an application seekin seeking cancellation of bail. AMIT SHARMA 2026.03.25 19:52 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment. CRM-M-54459- -2025 (O&M) 5

8. Since the main petition has been all Since n, if allowed, pending application, if any, is rendered in ered infructuous.

25.03.2026 Amit Sharma Whether speaking/reasoned:- Yes Whether reportable:- Yes/No Yes/No (MANISHA BATRA) (MA JUDGE AMIT SHARMA 2026.03.25 19:52 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment.