Mukul Moudgil @ Mukul v. State Of Haryana

-1IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision: 05.05.2025 MUKUL MOUDGIL @ MUKUL ... PETITIONER

VERSUS

STATE OF HARYANA ... RESPONDENT CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.S.GREWAL Present:- Mr. Vishal Sharda, Advocate for the petitioner. H.S. Grewal, J.(Oral) 1.

This petition has been filed for regular bail under Section 483 of BNSS in case FIR No. 43 dated 19.02.2025 under Sections 22 C and 29 NDPS Act registered at Police Station Mullana, District Ambala. 2.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been nominated in the present case only on the basis of disclosure statement suffered by co-accused Om Parkash @ Vicky while in custody and the same is inadmissible and is not a piece of evidence. The co-accused was found in possession of 1200 capsules of Spasmed and 2160 capsules of Tramadol. No recovery has been effected from the conscious possession of the petitioner. He further submits that there is only disclosure statement against the petitioner that the recovered contraband was purchased from the petitioner. The petitioner is in custody since 21.02.2025.

3.

Notice of motion.

-24.

Mr. Aditya Pal Singla, AAG, Haryana accepts notice on behalf of the respondent-State. Learned State counsel has filed the custody certificate in the Court today, which is taken on record. As per custody certificate, the petitioner is in custody for the last 02 months and 12 days. He vehemently opposes the prayer for grant of regular bail to the petitioner on the ground that petitioner has supplied the contraband to the co-accused from whom contraband has been recovered. He fairly admits that the petitioner is in custody since 21.02.2025. On asking, he submits that there is only disclosure statement of the co-accused against the petitioner and no evidence has come on record.

5.

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

6.

There is no other evidence collected against the petitioner except the disclosure statement made by the co-accused. The co-accused made statement that contraband recovered was supplied to him by the petitioner. No recovery has been effected from the petitioner. Since the continuous detention of the petitioner would not serve the ends of justice, I deem it a fit case to grant the concession of regular bail to the petitioner during the pendency of the trial. 7.

Therefore, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the instant petition is allowed. The petitioner is ordered to be released on regular bail on his furnishing requisite bail bonds, surety bonds to the satisfaction of the trial Court/Duty Magistrate/Chief Judicial Magistrate concerned.

-38.

It is clarified that if on bail so granted through the instant order, the applicant is found indulging in any other criminal case it shall be open to the State to seek cancellation of his bail.

9.

Pending applications, if any, shall also stand disposed of. (H.S.GREWAL) 05.05.2025 JUDGE renu Whether speaking/reasoned :

Yes/No Whether reportable :

Yes/No