Umer Ali v. State Of Haryana
1-
!" #$%$ &'
( ) *+ ,-
' ./ 01 00
!
"
# $$$ 0 -2 /3' %
'() * +, , -.-) / 0* 12 &
, ++
+& & +34 556
7) .( -.-' +
-7/ 2
8+
&
79(6/ 0 8 12
: + 8 : + - +
7) .( -.-'
&
#;" -<.+ "
=
+
& + @* "
7- .- -.-6 =
+
& +
= &
"
2- "
-) .6 -.-6 ) +&
&
&
> "
&
&& "
34
& %
" + , & " %48 &
" +
&&
+
" >
=
"
"
& A
"
4 +
&
& '
B + " + , + " +
+
+
&
& -<
+
7) .5 -.-'
7) .( -.-'& A +& "
+ " +
+" > % +
& " %
& + < %
+
-<.+
> ? + "
+
3- " & "
+ +
"
&
" "" +
+"
& %
+&
&
%
% "
"
"
+
+
&
,
"
& +
&
C "
C ,
& + C +
C
C +
&
+ +
&
&
"
& + %
&
7.
It is also unequivocally established that, to be granted bail, the accused charged with offence under the provisions of NDPS Act must fulfill the conditions stipulated in Section 37 of the Act. A contention has been raised that the rigors of Section 37 of the NDPS Act are attracted in the present case as there is recovery of commercial quantity of contraband. 8.
The case of the prosecution is that the name of the petitioner was disclosed by the co-accused, from whom recovery of commercial quantity of contraband has been effected. As per his disclosure statement, he had sourced the contraband from the petitioner. In Tofan Singh Vs. State of Tamil Nadu, (2021) 4 SCC 1, it was observed by Hon'ble Apex Court that the disclosure statements made under Section 67 of NDPS Act, are
4inadmissible in evidence unless corroborated by independent material. While the veracity of the disclosure statement against the petitioner will be tested during the course of trial, however, at this stage, it cannot be ignored that no recovery was ever effected from the petitioner. The petitioner is stated to be involved one more case under the NDPS Act but he is on bail in that case. He is in custody since 23.05.2025. Challan has been presented. Trial is likely to take considerable time to conclude. The object of jail is to secure the appearance of the accused during the trial and it can neither be punitive nor preventive and the deprivation of liberty has been considered as a punishment. As per the discussion made above, this Court is of the considered opinion that a case for release of the petitioner is made out.
Accordingly, the petition is allowed and the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail subject to his furnishing personal/surety bonds to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court/Chief Judicial Magistrate/Duty Magistrate concerned and on the following conditions:- (i) the petitioner shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case or tamper with the evidence of the case in any manner whatsoever.
(ii) he shall not leave the country under any circumstance without permission of the learned trial Court. (iii) he shall appear before the learned trial Court as and when directed.
(iv) he shall provide his address where he would be residing after release and shall not change the same without informing
5the concerned IO/SHO.
(v) the petitioner shall upon his release give his mobile phone number to concerned IO/SHO and shall keep his mobile phone switch on all times.
9.
In the event of there being any FIR/complaint lodged against the petitioner, it shall be open to the respondent to seek redressal by filing an application seeking cancellation of bail.
10.
It is, however, clarified that the observations made hereinabove shall not be construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case and shall not influence the outcome of the trial. 77
" +
40 5
( ) *+ ,-