ND @ AJAY MUKHIYA v. HARYANA

Mr. Kamal Chaudhary, Advocate for te for the petitioner Mr. Neeraj Poswal, AAG, Haryana Mr. N **** (cid:1) MANISHA BATR BATRA, J. (ORAL)(cid:1)

1. The instant petition has been prefe The preferred by the petitioner under Section 483 of Bh of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanh ) a Sanhita, 2023 (for short “BNSS”) for grant of regul regular bail in case arising out of F 2025 ut of FIR No.194 dated 13.10.2025 registered under under Sections 21B, 29 and 27(A 27(A) of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Subs Substances Act (for short “NDPS r 20, DPS”) at Police Station Sector 20, Panchkula.

2. As per the allegations, on 13.10. As p 3.10.2025, on a receipt of secret information to the to the effect that the co-accused Mich d Michael Masih and Jagroop Singh were engaged in s ed in sale of narcotic substances in la s in large quantity and on that very date also, they cou ey could be apprehended with the sam he same, as they were standing with the contraband i and in the parking area of Aashi kula. Aashiyana, Sector 20, Panchkula. Believing the sec secret information to be true, a r e, a raiding party was formed and AMIT SHARMA 2026.02.19 16:45 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment. CRM-M-71629- -2025 (O&M) 2 reached at the info he informed place and apprehended th nded the accused Jagroop Singh and Michael Masih. O sih. On conducting search, 128 Gram ey of Grams of heroin and drug money of Rs.20,400/- wer re recovered from their conscio conscious possession. They were formally arrested. rested. The recovered contraband an nd and drug money was taken into possession. The The above named accused suffered ffered disclosure statements on the basis of which co ich co-accused Gopi @ Gurpreet K reet Kaur was named as additional accused. During uring the course of investigation, the n, the call detail records of Michael Masih and Jagroo Jagroop was collected and it was reve s revealed that the accused Jagroop was in constant to tant touch with the present petitioner. ioner. The petitioner was joined into investigation. On n. On interrogation, he suffered disc d disclosure statement to the effect that the accused J used Jagroop and Michael Masih used ih used to supply contraband to him and he used to sel to sell the contraband further. The o ns of The offence under the provisions of Section 27 of NDP f NDPS was added. Investigation now on now stands concluded.

3. 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 missible in evidence. No recovery has been effected fected from him. The rigors of Sect f Section 37 of NDPS Act are not attracted qua him a him as the recovery allegedly effec y effected from the co-accused was also of non-comm commercial quantity. He has clean a lean antecedents. The investigating agency has failed failed to establish any link between the een the petitioner and the co-accused on the basis of so of some bank transactions, and any o at he d any other material to show that he was indulged in su d in supply/sale of contraband. The tr The trial will take considerable time AMIT SHARMA 2026.02.19 16:45 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment. CRM-M-71629- -2025 (O&M) 3 to conclude. His . His further incarceration would not s It is, d not serve any useful purpose. It is, thus, argued that th that the petition deserves to be allowe allowed.

4. Status report and custody certificate h Status State icate have been filed. Learned State counsel has argued argued that taking into consideration ns as n the gravity of the allegations as levelled against inst the petitioner. The petitioner do does not deserve to be extended benefit of bail.

5. This Court has heard the rival submi This C ubmissions made by both the parties at considerable len ble length.

6. The petitioner is alleged to be in The be in contact with the co-accused Jagroop and as per as per the further allegations, co-accu accused used to supply contraband to him, which wa ch was further sold by him. The pet n the he petitioner was nominated on the basis of the disclo disclosure statement of the co-accused ccused. In Tofan Singh Vs. State of Tamil Nadu, (202 (2021) 4 SCC 1, it was observed by t the ved by Hon’ble Apex Court that the disclosure stateme tatements made under Section 67 of N le in 7 of NDPS Act, are inadmissible in evidence unless co less corroborated by independent mate f the nt material. While the veracity of the disclosure stateme tatement against the petitioner will b se of will be tested during the course of trial, however, at er, at this stage, it cannot be ignore ignored that no recovery has been effected from the p m the petitioner. The petitioner was ar re is was arrested on 04.11.2025. There is nothing on record, rd, at this stage, to connect the pe the petitioner either with the subject crime or to show show that he was connected with the er at ith the co-accused in any manner at the relevant time. t time. Investigation has been comple completed. The trial will obviously take time to concl conclude. Keeping in view the afor nces, e aforesaid facts and circumstances, AMIT SHARMA 2026.02.19 16:45 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment. CRM-M-71629- -2025 (O&M) 4 this Court is of th s of the considered opinion that no us t no useful purpose would be served by keeping the p the petitioner in custody anymore. ore. Taking into consideration the above discussed fa ssed facts but without meaning to mak to make any comments on the merits of the case lest the est the same prejudice the trial in any m n any manner, the petition is allowed and the petitioner itioner is ordered to be released on b d on bail, subject to his furnishing personal and sure d surety bonds to the satisfaction of ion of the learned trial Court/Chief Judicial Magistrate gistrate/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.

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

19.02.2026 Amit Sharma Whether speaking/reasoned:- Yes (cid:1)(cid:2)(cid:3)(cid:4)(cid:2)(cid:3)(cid:5)(cid:6)(cid:5)(cid:3)(cid:7)(cid:8)(cid:5)(cid:4)(cid:9)(cid:10)(cid:11)(cid:3)(cid:12)(cid:13)(cid:6)(cid:14)(cid:3)(cid:15)(cid:16)(cid:17)(cid:8)(cid:6) Yes/No (cid:1) (MANISHA BATRA)(cid:1) (MA JUDGE(cid:1) AMIT SHARMA 2026.02.19 16:45 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment.