Jabbar Singh v. State Of Haryana

The present petition has been n filed under Section 483 of BNS, 2023 for the grant of regular bail to the petitioner in case FIR No.732 dat ted 30.12.2024, registered at P Police Station Sadar Thanesar, District Kur rukshetra, under Sections 21C, 2 27A, 61 and 85 NDPS Act.

2.

Learned counsel contends that the petitioner is in custody for about 10 m months. He alleges false implicat tion. His name surfaced on the disclosure s statement of co-accused Charan njot Singh @ Jot from whom marginally above the non-commercial quantity of contraband was recovered, i it being 269 grams of heroin. C Co-accused, who was similarly circumstanc ced and implicated based on th he disclosure statement of the aforesaid C haranjot Singh, has since been g granted bail by this Court, vide

order dated 14.10.2025. There is no recovery effected from the petitioner and no evidence has also emerged to connect him to the case, but for the aforesaid disclosure statement, which is inadmissible in the eyes of law as per the judgment passed by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case of Tofan Singh vs. State of Tamil Nadu, 2021 (1) RCR (Crl.) 1. Charges stand framed on 12.09.2025, however, none out of 13 PWs has been examined. He is involved in 2 more cases, 1 of which is under the NDPS Act and one under IPC, wherein he is on bail. Reliance is placed on the judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Maulana Mohd. Amir Rashadi vs. State of U.P. and others, 2012(2) SCC 382. He relies on the order passed by Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Sandeep Kumar @ Gogi vs. State of Haryana in CRM-M-24505-2022 decided on 07.12.2022, wherein also the petitioner was implicated on the basis of disclosure statement, no recovery had been effected from him, he was involved in one more case under the NDPS Act. 3.

Learned counsel for the respondent opposes the bail on the ground that there are specific allegations against the petitioner by the coaccused, who was apprehended at the spot alongwith commercial quantity of contraband. He is, however, unable to controvert the submissions with regard to stage of the case and petitioner being on bail in other cases and the co-accused having been enlarged on bail.

4.

Heard.

5.

Hon'ble The Supreme Court in the case of Maulana Mohd. Amir Rashadi (Supra)had held that, "As observed by the High Court,

merely on the basis of criminal antecedents, the claim of the second respondent cannot be rejected. In other words, it is the duty of the Court to find out the role of the accused in the case in which he has been charged and other circumstances such as possibility of fleeing away from the jurisdiction of the Court etc."

6.

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, in particular that the petitioner is in custody for the last 10 months; on bail in other cases; co-accused is on bail; charges were framed on 12.09.2025, but out of 13 PWs, none has been examined as yet; the trial is likely to take a considerable time, thus his further incarceration would not serve any useful purpose, the present petition for grant of regular bail deserves to be allowed.

7.

As a result, the present petition is allowed. The petitioner is ordered to be released on regular bail, subject to his furnishing bail/surety bonds to the satisfaction of trial Court/Duty Magistrate concerned and subject to his not being required in any other case. The petitioner shall abide by the following conditions:-

(vii) The petitioner shall furnish his address and mobile number to the Trial Court forthwith and shall not change the same till the conclusion of the trial and in case for any reason, the petitioner seeks to change any of the aforesaid, the same shall be done only with prior intimation to the learned Trial Court, stating the reason for the same.

8.

It is made abundantly clear that in case there is any breach of the aforesaid conditions, the State shall be at liberty to seek cancellation of bail as granted to the petitioner by this order. 9.

In view of the above, it is clarified that the observations made herein are limited for the purpose of present proceedings and would not be construed as an opinion on the merits of the case and the trial would proceed independently of the aforesaid observations.