Punjab-Haryana High Court
Pradeep Kumar vs State Of Haryana on 27 April, 2026
CRM-M No.21938 of 2026 (O&M) 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
236 CRM-M No.21938 of 2026 (O&M)
Date of Decision: 27.04.2026
Pradeep Kumar
......Petitioner
Versus
State of Haryana
...... Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA PARTAP SINGH
Present: Mr. Raman Chawla, Advocate for the petitioner.
Ms. Deepali Verma, AAG, Haryana.
SURYA PARTAP SINGH, J. (Oral):
This is first petition for bail, filed by the petitioner under
Section 483 of the ‘Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita 2023’. This
petition pertains to a case arising out of FIR No.116 dated 12.02.2023, for
the commission of offence punishable under Sections 15-C [Sections 29 and
27-A of NDPS Act added later on] of Narcotic Drugs & Psychotropic
Substances Act, 1985, Police Station Hisar Sadar, District Hisar.
2. In nut-shell, the facts emerging from record are that the FIR of
this case came into being at the instance of ‘ASI Inder Singh’, who had
reported that on 12.02.2023, when he was leading a team of police officials,
deputed for patrolling duty, a reliable source gave him a tip-off that ‘Vinod
S/o Manrup’ was travelling in a car bearing registration No.HR26-BV-4268,
and that he was carrying poppy straw in the abovementioned car. As per
above-named police official, in view of abovementioned information, the
MANOJ KUMAR
2026.04.27 19:47
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
CRM-M No.21938 of 2026 (O&M) 2
car was intercepted, but the accused ‘Vinod’ managed to flee from the spot.
3. It is the case of the prosecution that on search of
abovementioned car, it was found that the above-named accused was
carrying 74 kg of poppy straw in the abovesaid car. According to
prosecution on recovery of abovementioned contraband, necessary
formalities with regard to seizure & sealing of contraband, lodging of FIR,
and arrest of the accused were completed, and further investigation taken
up. As per prosecution, during the course of investigation, accused ‘Vinod’
was arrested and on interrogation, he suffered a disclosure statement,
wherein he disclosed that the abovementioned contraband was supplied to
him by the co-accused, i.e. Shri Ram.
4 Notice of motion.
5 Since advance notice has already been served upon the State, Ms.
Deepali Verma, AAG, Haryana, has appeared on behalf of respondent-State.
Hence, service of notice upon the State is hereby dispensed with. She has filed
custody certificate of the petitioner. The same be taken on record. No formal
reply has been filed by the State. However, the learned State counsel has
orally opposed the present petition.
6. Heard.
7. It has been contended on behalf of petitioner that the petitioner
is innocent having no nexus, whatsoever, with the commission of crime, and
that he was not found in conscious possession of contraband, allegedly
recovered from the car of co-accused ‘Vinod’. According to learned counsel
MANOJ KUMAR
2026.04.27 19:47
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
CRM-M No.21938 of 2026 (O&M) 3
for the petitioner, the petitioner has been implicated, merely, on the basis of
disclosure statement of co-accused ‘Vinod’, and that the abovementioned
disclosure statement is inadmissible in evidence, as the same was recorded,
when the co-accused ‘Vinod’ was in police custody. According to learned
counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner was not travelling in the car, from
which recovery of abovementioned contraband was effected, and that the
benefit of bail has already been afforded to main accused, namely ‘Vinod’.
8. In addition to above, the learned counsel for the petitioner has
also contended that the petitioner has already suffered a prolonged
incarceration for being in custody for a period of almost six months, and
that the petitioner has clean antecedents.
9. Per contra, the learned State Counsel has argued that in the
present case, the quantity of contraband recovered in this case comes within
the ambit of ‘commercial quantity’, and therefore, without satisfying the
twin conditions enshrined under Section-37 of NDPS Act, the benefit of bail
cannot be afforded to the petitioner.
10. However, this fact has not been disputed by learned State
Counsel. As per learned State counsel the petitioner has been implicated on
the basis of disclosure statement, suffered by his co-accused ‘Vinod’ and
that direct link between the petitioner and the commission of offence stands
proved in this case.
11. To deal with given fact-situation, the principles of law laid down
by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of ‘Vijay Singh Vs. The
MANOJ KUMAR
2026.04.27 19:47
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
CRM-M No.21938 of 2026 (O&M) 4
State of Haryana’ 2023 SCC OnlineSC 1235 are relevant. In the
abovementioned case, the petitioner was not present on the spot at the time of
recovery and he was implicated solely on the basis of statement of co-accused.
The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the abovementioned case afforded the
benefit of bail to the accused.
12. Similarly, in the case of ‘Surender Kumar Khanna Vs.
Intelligence Officer Directorate of Revenue Intelligence‘ 2018(3) SCC
Online SC 757, are relevant, wherein it has been held by the Hon’ble
Supreme Court of India that the disclosure statement of co-accused is
inadmissible against another accused, as the disclosure statement is not a
substantive piece of evidence against other accused.
13. Similar principle has been laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme
Court of India in the case of ‘Preet Kamal Vs. State of Punjab‘, 2018(4)
RCR (Criminal) 938, wherein it has been held that the disclosure statement
of an accused can be used only against the person making the same, and not
against the co-accused.
14. In ‘Tofan Singh Vs. State of Tamil Nadu‘, 2021(4) SCC 1 also,
it has been observed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India that
confessional statement of accused recorded under Section 67 of NDPS Act
cannot be admitted in evidence, as a confession.
15. The record has been perused carefully.
16. If the facts and circumstances of the present case are analyzed
in the light of above-mentioned principles of law, it transpires that:-
MANOJ KUMAR
2026.04.27 19:47
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
CRM-M No.21938 of 2026 (O&M) 5
i) that the petitioner is already in custody for a period of almost
six months;
ii) that the petitioner has clean antecedents;
iii) that the only evidence, collected by the investigating agency
against the petitioner, is the disclosure statement of co-
accused of the petitioner, and there is a question mark with
regard to credibility & admissibility of above-mentioned
statement in evidence, as the same was recorded when the co-
accused of the petitioner was in police custody. Since
pursuant to above-mentioned disclosure statement no
recovery of incriminating material or discovery of fact has
taken place, prima facie the abovementioned statement
appears to be hit by Section-23 of Bharatiya Sakshya
Adhiniyam;
iv) that the investigation in this case is already complete and
therefore, nothing has been left to be recovered from the
possession of petitioner;
v) that the trial of this case is not likely to be concluded in near
future;
vi) that the benefit of bail has already been afforded to the co-
accused, namely Vinod, vide order dated 05.08.2025, passed
by this Court;
MANOJ KUMAR
2026.04.27 19:47
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
CRM-M No.21938 of 2026 (O&M) 6
vii) that the name of petitioner does not figure in the FIR;
viii) that the detention of petitioner in judicial lock-up is not likely
to serve any purpose;
ix) that there is nothing on record to show that if released on bail,
the petitioner may tamper with the evidence or influence the
witnesses;
x) that there is nothing on record to show that if released on bail,
the petitioner will not co-operate/participate in the trial.
17. In the present case, the principles of law laid down by the
Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of ‘Dataram versus State of
Uttar Pradesh and another‘, (2018) 3 SCC 22, are relevant, wherein it has
been observed that “a fundamental postulate of criminal jurisprudence is the
presumption of innocence, meaning thereby that a person is believed to be
innocent until found guilty. However, there are instances in our criminal law
where a reverse onus has been placed on an accused with regard to some
specific offences but that is another matter and does not detract from the
fundamental postulate in respect of other offences. Yet another important
facet of our criminal jurisprudence is that the grant of bail is the general rule
and putting a person in jail or in a prison or in a correction home (whichever
expression one may wish to use) is an exception. Unfortunately, some of
these basic principles appear to have been lost sight of with the result that
more and more persons are being incarcerated and for longer periods. This
MANOJ KUMAR
2026.04.27 19:47
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
CRM-M No.21938 of 2026 (O&M) 7
does not do any good to our criminal jurisprudence or to our society. There
is no doubt that the grant or denial of bail is entirely the discretion of the
judge considering a case but even so, the exercise of judicial discretion has
been circumscribed by a large number of decisions rendered by this Court
and by every High Court in the country. Yet, occasionally there is a
necessity to introspect whether denying bail to an accused person is the right
thing to do on the facts and in the circumstances of a case”.
18. The principles laid down by the Hon’ble the Supreme Court of
India in the case of ‘Satender Kumar Antil v. Central Bureau of
Investigation‘ (2022) 10 SCC 51 are also relevant in this case. In the
abovementioned case, it has been observed that “the rate of conviction in
criminal cases in India is abysmally low. It appears to us that this factor
weighs on the mind of the Court while deciding the bail applications in a
negative sense. Courts tend to think that the possibility of a conviction being
nearer to rarity, bail applications will have to be decided strictly, contrary to
legal principles. We cannot mix up consideration of a bail application, which
is not punitive in nature with that of a possible adjudication by way of trial.
On the contrary, an ultimate acquittal with continued custody would be a
case of grave injustice”.
19. Recently, in the case of ‘Tapas Kumar Palit Vs. State of
Chhattisgarh’, 2025 SCC Online SC 322, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of
India has observed that “if an accused is to get a final verdict after
incarceration of six to seven years in jail as an undertrial prisoner, then,
MANOJ KUMAR
2026.04.27 19:47
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
CRM-M No.21938 of 2026 (O&M) 8
definitely, it could be said that his right to have a speedy trial under Article
21 of the Constitution has been infringed”. It has also been observed by the
Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the abovementioned case that “delays
are bad for the accused and extremely bad for the victims, for Indian society
and for the credibility of our justice system, which is valued. Judges are the
masters of their Courtrooms and the Criminal Procedure Code provides
many tools for the Judges to use in order to ensure that cases proceed
efficiently”.
20. To elucidate further, this Court is conscious of the basic and
fundamental principle of law that right to speedy trial is a part of reasonable,
fair and just procedure enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution of
India. This constitutional right cannot be denied to an undertrial prisoner, as
mandated by Hon’ble Apex court in ‘Balwinder Singh versus State of
Punjab and another‘ 2024 SCC Online SC 4354.
21. Taking into consideration the cumulative effect of all the
aforesaid factors, it is hereby held that the petitioner is entitled for the
concession of bail, and that the present petition deserves to be allowed.
22. Accordingly, without commenting anything on the merits of the
case, the present petition is hereby allowed. The petitioner is hereby
ordered to be released on bail on furnishing personal bond and surety
bond(s) to the satisfaction of learned trial Court. However, the abovesaid
benefit shall be subject to following conditions:-
i) that the petitioner shall not directly or indirectly make any
MANOJ KUMAR
2026.04.27 19:47
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
CRM-M No.21938 of 2026 (O&M) 9inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with
the facts of the case, so as to dissuade him from disclosing
such facts to the Court or to any other authority;
ii) that the petitioner shall at the time of execution of bond,
furnish the address to the Court concerned and shall notify
the change in address to the trial Court, till the final decision
of the trial; and
iii) that the petitioner shall not leave India without prior
permission of trial Court.
23. It is, however, made clear that any observation made
hereinabove is only for the purpose of deciding the present petition and the
same shall have no bearing on the merits of the case.
(SURYA PARTAP SINGH)
JUDGE
27.04.2026
Manoj Bhutani
Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No
Whether reportable Yes/No
MANOJ KUMAR
2026.04.27 19:47
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
