Punjab-Haryana High Court
Bhaskar Sagaria vs State Of Haryana on 19 February, 2026
1
CRM-
CRM-M-2182-
2182-2026
224
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
CRM-
CRM-M-2182-
2182-2026
Bhaskar Sagaria
....Petitioner
Petitioner
versus
State of Haryana
....Respondent
Date of decision: February 19,
19, 2026
Date of Uploading: February 19,
19, 2026
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL
Present:-
Present: Ms. Bhupinder Kaur, Advocate for the petitioner.
Ms. Priyanka Sadar Thakur, Senior DAG Haryana.
*****
SUMEET GOEL,
GOEL, J. (ORAL)
Present petition has been filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya
Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short ‘BNSS’
‘BNSS’) for grant of regular bail to
the petitioner, in case bearing FIR No.244 dated 09.08.2025, registered for the
offences
ences punishable under Sections
Section 20(b)(ii)(C)
20(b)(ii)(C), 27(a) and 29 of the Narcotic
Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short ‘NDPS Act’)
Act‘), at Police
Station Sadar Jhajjar, District Jhajjar.
2. The gravamen of the FIR in question is that the petitioner is an
accused of being involved in an FIR pertaining to N
NDPS Act involving 97 Kgs.
and 50 grams of ganja allegedly found in possession of 05 co
co-accused,
accused, and the
petitioner has been nominated, in this case, on the basis of disclosure of co
co–
accused.
1 of 7
::: Downloaded on – 21-02-2026 06:23:20 :::
2
CRM-
CRM-M-2182-
2182-2026
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has iterated that the petitioner is
in custody since 12.08.2025. Learned counsel for the petitioner iterated that
mandatory provisions of NDPS Act have not been complied with and, thus, the
prosecution case suffers from inherent defects. Learned counsel has further
iterated that sole basis to array the petitioner as an accused is the disclosure
statement of co-accused. Learned counsel has further iterated that the petitioner
suffered incarceration for more than 06 months. Thus, regular bail is prayed for.
4. Learned State counsel has filed short report by way of an affidavit
dated 10.02.2026, which is already on record. Raising submissions in tandem
with the said reply, learned State counsel has opposed the present petition by
arguing that the allegations raised against the petitioner are serious in nature and,
thus, the petitioner does not deserve the concession of the regular bail.
Learned State counsel seeks to place on record the custody certificate
dated 18.02.2026, in the Court today, which is taken on record.
5. I have heard counsel for the rival parties and have gone through the
available records of the case.
6. The petitioner was arrested on 12.08.2025, whereinafter, the
investigation was carried out and the challan has been presented on 28.01.2026.
Total 32 prosecution witnesses have been cited, and it is not in dispute that
conclusion of the trial will take long. The petitioner has been implicated as an
accused into the FIR in question solely on the basis of disclosure statement of
co-accused from whom alleged contraband has been recovered. As per
prosecution version, there is no other material available to connect the petitioner
with the contraband except for the said disclosure statement. It is pertinent to
note that such disclosure statements, in the absence of corroborative evidence
hold limited evidentiary value and cannot be sole basis for implicating the
2 of 7
::: Downloaded on – 21-02-2026 06:23:21 :::
3
CRM-
CRM-M-2182-
2182-2026
petitioner. The reliance on this unsubstantiated statement raises serious doubts
about the fairness and objectivity of the investigation. It is not in dispute that the
petitioner was not present at the spot. The veracity and weightage required to be
attached to the disclosure statement made by the co-accused will be fully tested
at the time of trial. The rival contentions raised at Bar give rise to debatable
issues, which shall be ratiocinated upon during the course of trial. This Court
does not deem it appropriate to delve deep into these rival contentions, at this
stage, lest it may prejudice the trial. Nothing tangible has been brought forward
to indicate the likelihood of the petitioner absconding from the process of justice
or interfering with the prosecution evidence.
6.1. At this juncture, it would be apposite to refer to a judgment passed
Punjab
by this Court in Anshul Sardana versus State of P unjab, passed in CRM
unjab CRM–M-
65094–2024 (2025: PHHC:004198), wherein, after relying upon the ratio
65094
decidendi of the judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Tofan Singh versus
State of Tamil Nadu, AIR 2020 Supreme Court 5592; Smt. Najmunisha, Abdul
Hamid Chandmiya @ Ladoo Bapu versus State of Gujrat, Narcotics Control
Bureau, 2024 INSC 290; State by (NCB) Bengaluru vs. Pallulabid Ahmad
Arimutta & Anr.’, 2022 (1) RCR (Criminal) 762; and Vijay Singh vs. The State
of Haryana, bearing Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No.(s) 1266/2023, decided
on 17.05.2023, has held thus:
“6.3 It is a well established principle of law that a confession
made by a co-accused under Section 67 of the NDPS Act is inherently a
very weak piece of evidence. Such statement(s), by themselves, cannot
form the sole basis for the conviction of an individual and must be
scrutinized with utmost caution in conjunction with other substantive
evidence. Moreover, no recovery has been effected from the possession of
the petitioner, who has been subsequently implicated as an accused solely
on the basis of disclosure statement of the co-accused. However, as regular
bail pertains to life and liberty of individual, Courts are obligated to strike a
balance between safeguarding personal liberty and ensuring the effective
administration of justice as also investigation. The final evidentiary value
and admissibility of the disclosure statement made by a co-accused fall3 of 7
::: Downloaded on – 21-02-2026 06:23:21 :::
4
CRM-
CRM-M-2182-
2182-2026within the domain of the trial Court and are to be adjudicated during the
course of the trial in accordance with established principles of law.
However, while adjudicating a plea for regular bail, this Court cannot
remain oblivious to the circumstances under which the petitioner has been
arraigned or implicated, including the nature of the allegations, the evidence
linking the petitioner to the offence as well as the specific role attributed to
the petitioner in the commission of the alleged offence. A prima facie
examination of these factors is essential to ensure that the process of law is
not misused, abused or misdirected.”
6.2. Further, this Court in the case of Jaswinder Singh alias Kala versus
CRM–M-33729
State of Punjab passed in CRM 33729–2025 (2025:PHHC:089161) has held
thus:
“14. As a sequitur to above-said rumination, the following
postulates emerge:
(I) (i) A bail plea on merits; in respect of an FIR under NDPS Act
of 1985 involving offence(s) under Section 19 or Section 24 or
Section 27-A thereof and for offence(s) involving commercial
quantity; is essentially required to meet with the rigour(s) of Section
37 of NDPS Act.
(ii) The rigour(s) of Section 37 of NDPS Act do not apply to a
bail plea(s) on medical ground(s), interim bail on account of any
exigency including the reason of demise of a close family relative
etc.
(iii) The rigour(s) of Section 37 of NDPS Act pale into oblivion
when bail is sought for on account of long incarceration in view of
Article 21 of the Constitution of India i.e. where the bail-applicant
has suffered long under-trial custody, the trial is procrastinating and
folly thereof is not attributable to such bail-applicant.
II. The twin conditions contained in Section 37(1)(b) of NDPS Act are
in addition to the conditions/parameters contained in Cr.P.C./BNSS
or any other applicable extant law.
III. The twin conditions contained in Section 37(1)(b) of NDPS Act are
cumulative in nature and not alternative i.e. both the conditions are
required to be satisfied for a bail-plea to be successful.
IV. For consideration by bail Court of the condition stipulated in Section
37(1)(b)(i) of NDPS Act i.e. “there are reasonable grounds for
believing that he is not guilty of such offence”:
(i) The bail Court ought to sift through all relevant
material, including case-dairy, exclusively for the limited
purpose of adjudicating such bail plea.
(ii) Such consideration, concerning the assessment of
guilt or innocence, should not mirror the same degree of
scrutiny required for an acquittal of the accused at the final
adjudication & culmination of trial.
4 of 7
::: Downloaded on – 21-02-2026 06:23:21 :::
5
CRM-
CRM-M-2182-
2182-2026
(iii) Plea(s) of defence by applicant-accused, if any,
including material/documents in support thereof, may be
looked into by the bail-Court while adjudicating such bail
plea.
V. For consideration of the condition stipulated in Section 37(1)(b)(ii)
i.e. ‘he is not likely to commit any offence while on bail’:
(i) The word ‘likely’ ought to be interpreted as requiring
a demonstrable and substantial probability of re-offending by
the bail-applicant, rather than a mere theoretical one, as no
Court can predict future conduct of the bail-applicant.
(ii) The entire factual matrix of a given case including
the antecedents of the bail-applicant, role ascribed to him,
and the nature of offence are required to be delved into.
However, the involvement of bail-applicant in another
NDPS/other offence cannot ipso facto result in the
conclusion of his propensity for committing offence in the
future.
(iii) The bail-Court may, at the time of granting bail,
impose upon the applicant-accused a condition that he would
submit, at such regular time period/interval as may stipulated
by the Court granting bail, an affidavit before concerned
Special Judge of NDPS Court/Illaqa (Jurisdictional) Judicial
Magistrate/concerned Police Station, to the effect that he has
not been involved in commission of any offence after being
released on bail. In the facts of a given case, imposition of
such condition may be considered to be sufficient for
satisfaction of condition enumerated in Section 37(1)(b)(ii).
VI. There is no gainsaying that the nature, mode and extent of exercise
of power by a Court; while satisfying itself regarding the conditions
stipulated in Section 37 of NDPS Act; shall depend upon the judicial
discretion exercised by such Court in the facts and circumstances of
a given case. No exhaustive guidelines can possibly be laid down as
to what would constitute parameters for satisfaction of requirement
under Section 37 (ibid) as every case has its own unique
facts/circumstances. Making such an attempt is nothing but a
utopian endeavour. Ergo, this issue is best left to the judicial
wisdom and discretion of the Court dealing with such matter.”
6.3. As per custody certificate dated 18.02.2026 filed by the learned
State counsel, the petitioner has already suffered incarceration for a period of 06
months and 03 days. Further, as per the said custody certificate, the petitioner is
stated to be involved in other FIR(s). However, this factum cannot be a ground
sufficient by itself, to decline the concession of regular bail to the petitioner in
the FIR in question when a case is made out for grant of regular bail qua the FIR
in question by ratiocinating upon the facts/circumstances of the said FIR.
5 of 7
::: Downloaded on – 21-02-2026 06:23:21 :::
6
CRM-
CRM-M-2182-
2182-2026
Reliance in this regard can be placed upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme
Court in Maulana Mohd. Amir Rashadi v. State of U.P. and another, 2012 (1)
RCR (Criminal) 586; a Division Bench judgment of the Hon’ble Calcutta High
Court in case of Sridhar Das v. State, 1998 (2) RCR (Criminal) 477 & judgments
of this Court in CRM-M No.38822-2022 titled as Akhilesh Singh v. State of
Haryana, decided on 29.11.2021, and Balraj v. State of Haryana, 1998 (3) RCR
(Criminal) 191.
Suffice to say, further detention of the petitioner as an undertrial is
not warranted in the facts and circumstances of the case.
7. In view of above, the present petition is allowed. Petitioner is
ordered to be released on regular bail, if not required in any other case, on his
furnishing bail/surety bonds to the satisfaction of the Ld. concerned trial
Court/Duty Magistrate. However, in addition to conditions that may be imposed
by the concerned trial Court/Duty Magistrate, the petitioner shall remain bound
by the following conditions:
(i) The petitioner shall not mis-use the liberty granted.
(ii) The petitioner shall not tamper with any evidence, oral or
documentary, during the trial.
(iii) The petitioner shall not absent himself on any date before the
trial.
(iv) The petitioner shall not commit any offence while on bail.
(v) The petitioner shall deposit his passport, if any, with the trial
Court.
(vi) The petitioner shall give his cellphone number to the
Investigating Officer/SHO of concerned Police Station and
shall not change his cell-phone number without prior
permission of the trial Court/Illaqa Magistrate.
(vii) The petitioner shall not in any manner try to delay the trial.
(viii) The petitioner shall submit, on the first working day of every
month, an affidavit, before the concerned trial Court, to the
effect that he has not been involved in commission of any
offence after being released on bail. In case the petitioner is
found to be involved in any offence after his being enlarged
on bail in the present FIR, on the basis of his affidavit or
otherwise, the State is mandated to move, forthwith, for6 of 7
::: Downloaded on – 21-02-2026 06:23:21 :::
7
CRM-
CRM-M-2182-
2182-2026
cancellation of his bail which plea, but of course, shall be
ratiocinated upon merits thereof.
8. In case of breach of any of the aforesaid conditions and those
which may be imposed by concerned trial Court/Duty Magistrate as directed
hereinabove or upon showing any other sufficient cause, the State/complainant
shall be at liberty to move cancellation of bail of the petitioner.
9. Ordered accordingly.
10. Nothing said hereinabove shall be construed as an expression of
opinion on the merits of the case.
11. Since the main case has been decided, pending miscellaneous
application, if any, shall also stands disposed off.
(SUMEET GOEL)
GOEL)
JUDGE
February 19,
19, 2026
mahavir
Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No
Whether reportable: Yes/No
7 of 7
::: Downloaded on – 21-02-2026 06:23:21 :::
