Punjab-Haryana High Court
Sunil vs State Of Haryana on 2 April, 2025
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:044256
CRM-M-2220
2220-2025 (O&M) -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND
HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
227
CRM-M-2220-2025
2025 (O&M)
Decided on : 02.04.2025
Sunil ...Petitioner
Versus
State of Haryana ...Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANISHA BATRA
Present:- Mr. Sahil Choudhary, Advocate
for the petitioner.
Mr. Neeraj Poswal, AAG, Haryana.
MANISHA BATRA, J (Oral)
1. This petition has been filed by the petitioner under Section 483 of Bharatiya tiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 seeking regular bail in case bearing FIR No. 197 dated 25.08.2024,, registered under Section Sections 20 and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short 'NDPS Act') at Police Station Sector 14, Panchkula, Haryana.
2. Brief facts of the case relevant for the purpose of disposal of this petition are that on 25.08.2024, co-accused co accused Parmod Kumar was apprehended by a police party and recovery of 6240 intoxicant capsules, having salt of Paracetamol Dicyclomine Hydrochloride and Tramadol Hydrochloride, 1950 tablets of Alprazolam and 50 small bottles of Chlorampheniramine Maleate and Codeine Phosphate was effected from him. During the course of investigation, the disclosure statement of afo aforesaid co-accused accused was recorded, wherein he disclosed that he had purchased the recovered contraband from the present petitioner.
petitioner The petitioner along with one Azad was arrested on 28.08.2024. The petitioner nominated one Shokat, from whom he had 1 of 4 ::: Downloaded on - 04-04-2025 05:17:27 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:044256 CRM-M-2220 2220-2025 (O&M) -2- procured the contraband. Co-accused Co accused Shokat was also arrested on 30.08.2024. His disclosure statement was recorded, wherein he stated that he had purchased the contraband from co-accused co accused Mohan Lal. After completion of necessary investigation and usual formalities, formalities, challan was presented in the Court and presently, the petitioner along with co co-accused accused is facing trial for commission of aforesaid offences.
offence
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in this this case. The petitioner was not found at the spot and has been involved in this case on the basis of the disclosure statement made by the co-accused, co accused, which is not admissible in evidence against the petitioner. To fortify this argument, learned counsel for tthe he petitioner has relied upon the authority of Hon'ble Supreme Court rendered in Tofan Singh vs. State of Tamil Nadu : (2021) 4 SCC 11. It is further argued that no subsequent recovery has been effected from the petitioner. The petitioner is not involved in any other criminal case. There is nothing on record to connect the petitioner with the subject crime. Even otherwise, ssimilarly situated ed co-
co accused Mohan Lal, Azad and Shokat have already been granted concession of regular bail by this Court, Court, vide orders dated 14.01.2025, 28.02.2025 and 18.02.2025 passed by this Court in CRM-
CRM-M-56545-2024, CRM-M-400-202 2025 and CRM-M-65046-2024, CRM , respectively. On the grounds of parity, the petitioner too deserves the same benefit. The petitioner is in custody since 28.08.2024. Trial is likely to take time. No useful purpose would be served by keeping the petitioner in custody anymore. It is, therefore, urged that the petition deserves to be allowed.
2 of 4 ::: Downloaded on - 04-04-2025 05:17:28 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:044256 CRM-M-2220 2220-2025 (O&M) -3-
4. Status report has been filed by the respondent-State.
State. It is submitted therein and learned Assistant Advocate General, Haryana has argued that though the petitioner was nominated in this case on the basis of the disclosure suffered by the co-accused co accused but during the course of investigation, ion, his involvement in the subject crime has been established. The petitioner along with co-accused accused had procured the contraband from co-accused accused Shokat, which in turn was sold to co co-accused accused Parmod Kumar. Call details record of the petitioner p and co-accused accused was procured and a perusal of the same would show that they were in constant touch with each other during relevant time. It is, thus, argued that the petition is liable to be dismissed.
5. In reply, learned counsel for the petitio petitioner ner has relied upon an order dated 23.08.2023, passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Special Leave to appeal (Crl.) No. 6599/2023, titled as Ajmal T. A. @ Kuru vs. State of Kerala,, whereby in similar circumstances, the petitioner petitioner-accused accused had been granted concession of regular bail by observing that there was remote likelihood of the petitioner's involvement as the alleged involvement was entirely based upon the co-accused's co accused's statement and alleged call details record.
6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties at considerable length and have also perused the material placed on record.
7. The petitioner has been nominated in this case on the basis of the disclosure made by the co-accused Sunil. A perusal of the record reveals that thee petitioner was nominated by main accused Parmod Kumar, who was apprehended by the police party at the spot and from whom, the recovery of aforementioned contraband was effected. After the arrest of the petitioner, no incriminating material was recovered from him. He is not involved in any 3 of 4 ::: Downloaded on - 04-04-2025 05:17:28 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:044256 CRM-M-2220 2220-2025 (O&M) -4- other case under the NDPS Act. The petitioner is in custody since 28.08.2024.
28.08.2024 Investigation has since been concluded and challan has been filed. Trial is likely to take time. At this stage, there is nothing on record to connect the petitioner with the subject crime, except the aforesaid call details record, whereby he is shown to be in touch with co co-accused.
accused. However, as per ratio of law as laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in above cited authority, the same alone cannot be a ground to deny the benefit of bail to the petitioner as no subsequent recovery of any narcotic substance was effected from him. Moreover, three similarly situated co-accused accused have already been granted concession of regular bail by this Court Court, as mentioned above.. Therefore, keeping eeping in view the aforesaid facts and circumstances circumstances,, I am of the considered opinion that no useful purpose would be served by detaining the petitioner in custody anymore. Accordingly, the present petition is allowed. The petitioner is ordered to be released on regular bail, subject to his furnishing personal/surety bonds to the satisfaction of the trial Court/Duty Magistrate concerned. However, it will be open for the prosecution to apply for cancellation of bail in case the petitioner is found involved in any other subsequent case.
8. 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.
cas
02.04.2025 (MANISHA BATRA)
Waseem Ansari JUDGE
Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No
Whether reportable Yes/No
4 of 4
::: Downloaded on - 04-04-2025 05:17:28 :::