Anil Alias Anilawa v. State Of Haryana

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-62207-2025 Decided on : 12.11.2025 Anil @ Anilawa ...... Petitioner

Versus

State of Haryana ...... Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE RUPINDERJIT CHAHAL *** Present :

Mr. Sourabh Sheoran, Advocate for the petitioner.

Ms. Shaveta Sanghi, DAG, Haryana for the respondent-State.

*** RUPINDERJIT CHAHAL , J (ORAL) 1.

Prayer in the instant petition filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 is for grant of regular bail to the petitioner in case FIR No.242 dated 17.06.2025, registered under Sections 21 (c) of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (Section 29 of the NDPS Act added lateron), at Police Station City Narnaul, District Mahendergarh.

2.

Brief facts as per the prosecution case are that on 17.06.2025, ASI Kuldeep along with other police officials, apprehended one Abhishek, who was found in conscious possession of 620 gram of heroin, which is commercial in nature. Initially, the FIR in question was registered against the said co-accused Abhishek.

3.

Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case and he has no concern with the said offence. He has argued that neither the petitioner was present at the spot nor was named in the FIR. It has also been contended that the petitioner was nominated


as an accused on the basis of disclosure statement made by co-accused Abhishek. Apart from the disclosure statement, there is no other evidence to connect the petitioner with the offence in question and it is a trite law that disclosure statement of co-accused during his custodial interrogation is not admissible. Learned counsel contends that co-accused of the petitioner namely Hemant has already been granted regular bail by this Court vide order dated 29.10.2025, passed in CRM-M-58931-2025. No recovery is to be effected from the petitioner. He is in custody since 20.06.2025 and he has clean antecedents. The investigation in the case is complete, challan stands presented; charges have been framed. Learned counsel submits that out of 15 prosecution witnesses, none has been examined till date. Learned counsel submits that the trial will take a long time to conclude and no useful purpose would be served by keeping him behind bars. Therefore, it is urged that the petition deserves to be allowed. 4.

Notice of motion.

5.

Learned State counsel, who has appeared on advance notice of the petition, has filed the custody certificate of the petitioner, which is taken on record. She has vehemently opposed the prayer for grant of bail by submitting that the offence committed by the petitioner is serious in nature. However, she has not controverted the fact that the petitioner is the first time offender as he is not involved in any other case.

6.

A query was raised by this Court to learned State counsel as to whether apart from the disclosure statement, any material has been found during investigation to connect the petitioner with recovered contraband to which she answered that there is nothing else to connect the petitioner with the offence. 7.

As far as the argument of learned counsel for the petitioner


regarding nomination of accused on the basis of disclosure statement is concerned, it would be apposite to refer herein to a judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court titled as 'Tofan Singh vs. State of Tamil Nadu, AIR 2020 Supreme Court 5592', relevant whereof reads as under: "155. We answer the reference by stating: (i) That the officers who are invested with powers under section 53 of the NDPS Act are "police officers within the meaning of section 25 of the Evidence Act, as a result of which any confessional statement made to them would be barred under the provisions of section 25 of the Evidence Act, and cannot be taken into account in order to convict an accused under the NDPS Act (ii) That a statement recorded under section 67 of the NDPS Act cannot be used as a confessional statement in the trial of an offence under the NDPS ACT". 8.

More recently, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in a judgment titled as 'Smt. Najmunisha, Abdul Hamid Chandmiya @ Ladoo Bapu Vs. State of Gujrat, Narcotics Control Bureau' 2024 INSC 290', has reiterated the ratio decidendi of the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Tofan Singh (supra).

9.

The Hon'ble Supreme Court while dealing with a plea for grant of anticipatory bail in a case under NDPS Act, 1985; in a judgment titled as 'Vijay Singh vs. The State of Haryana, bearing Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No. (s)1266/2023 decided on 17.05.2023' has held as under: "The petitioner is alleged to have committed offences under Sections 15 and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter called the NDPS Act". His application for anticipatory bail was rejected by the High Court. The allegations in the FIR are that 1.7 Kg of Poppy Straw (Doda Post) was recovered from the co-accused. The petitioner


concededly was not present at the spot but was named by the coaccused. That apart there is no other material to implicate the petitioner. The prosecution urges that another case with allegations of commission of offence under the NDPS Act are pending against the petitioner. It is not denied that in those proceedings he was granted bail. Having regard to these circumstances, the petitioner is directed to the enlarged on anticipatory bail, subject to such terms and conditions as the trial Court may impose. The petition is allowed. All pending applications are disposed of." 10.

The petitioner is sought to be arrayed solely on the basis of disclosure statement of the co-accused. Suffice to say there is no other material available to connect the petitioner with the recovered contraband. The veracity of the disclosure statement made by the co-accused will be subject to comprehensive scrutiny during the course of the trial and same cannot be a ground to decline the concession of regular bail to the petitioner. 11.

Having heard learned counsel for the parties at length and after perusing the record of the case, it is evident that the petitioner is in custody for the last 04 months and 21 days; investigation is complete; challan stands presented, charges have been framed and out of 15 prosecution witnesses, none has been examined till date and the trial is proceeding at snail's pace, no useful purpose would be served by detaining him in further custody. Also co-accused of the petitioner namely Hemant has already been granted the concession of regular bail by this Court. Keeping the petitioner in further detention without the prospect of the trial being concluded in the near future would be violative of his rights under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. 12.

Reliance is placed upon a judgment in the case of Dataram Singh


vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr. 2018(2) R.C.R. (Criminal) 131, wherein Hon'ble Apex Court has held that keeping somebody behind the bars, till his guilt is proved, for an indefinite period amounts to infringement of her right to life and liberty, as enshrined under Article 21 of Constitution of India and is against the principle "bail is a rule" and "jail is an exception". 14.

In view of the above, the present petition is allowed and the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail on his furnishing bail bonds/surety bonds to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court/Duty Magistrate/CJM concerned. It is clarified that nothing stated herein shall be construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case. 









RUPINDERJIT CHAHAL