Jairam Alias Sonu Vs State of Haryana

Th i s is the first petition filed u n der Section 483 of the Bhara t iya Nagarik Suraks h a Sanhita, 2023 for the grant of regular bail to the petitione r in case FIR No. 7 4 dated 18.03.2025, registered u n der Sections 20-C and 29 of N D PS Act at Police St a tion Uchana, District Jind. 2. As per the prosecution case, on 1 8 .03.2025, a police party heade d by ASI Manoj Ku m ar, while present on Uchana K a lan to Bhongra Road near Raja b ha Bridge within the jurisdiction of Police Station Uchana, received se c ret information re g arding the movement of cer t ain persons carrying contrab a nd. Acting upon th e said information, the police a p prehended co-accused Raman alias Chhota and S u mit alias Koki, who were tr a velling on a motorcycle bea r ing registration No. HR-32C-7380. During checki n g, a black coloured polythene b ag allegedly cont a ining Charas (Sulfa) weighin g 1 kilogram and 22 grams w as recovered from their possession, which they w ere allegedly carrying without a ny permit or licen c e. After completing the requis i te formalities and complying w ith TRIPTI SAINIthe provisions o f the NDPS Act, the said accuse d persons were arrested. 2026.03.09 16:45 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶15

CRM-M-54636-2025 (O&M) -2-

¶16

D u ring investigation, the afores a id co-accused suffered disclo s ure statements to the effect that the recovered contr a band had been purchased from coaccused Jaswa n t. Thereafter, Jaswant was arrested on 26.05.2025 and he in t urn suffered a discl o sure statement alleging that he had procured the contraband f r om the present peti t ioner, namely Jairam alias Son u . On the basis of the said disclo s ure statement, the p resent petitioner was arrested o n 05.06.2025. It is further the c ase of the prosecut i on that an amount of ₹3,000/was recovered from the petiti o ner during investig a tion. After completion of the i n vestigation, the final report u n der Section 173 Cr. P .C. has been presented before t h e competent Court.

¶17

Le a rned counsel for the petition e r contends that the petitioner has been falsely im p licated in the present case. It i s submitted that the petitioner has been nominate d solely on the basis of the d isclosure statement of co-acc u sed Jaswant, who himself was implicated on the b a sis of the disclosure statement s of co-accused Ra m an alias Chhota and Sumit a l ias Koki. Learned counsel fur t her submits that n o recovery of contraband has been effected from the conscious possession of t h e petitioner and the only reco v ery attributed to him is ₹3,000/-, which by itself cannot connect him with the a l leged contraband. It is argued t hat the evidentiary value of disclosure statement s of co-accused is limited and the petitioner deser v es the concession of bail. Lear n ed counsel further submits that the petitioner is in custody since 05.06.2025 and the trial is likely to take tim e to conclude.

¶18

Pe r contra, learned State counsel h as opposed the prayer for bail a nd submits that t h e petitioner is involved in a n other case as well. It is fur t her submitted that t he petitioner was nominated d u ring investigation on the basi s of disclosure state m ent of co-accused Jaswant a n d an amount of ₹3,000/- was a lso

¶19

TRIPTI SAINI 2026.03.09 16:45 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶20

CRM-M-54636-2025 (O&M) -3-

¶21

recovered from him. However, learned State c o unsel does not dispute the fact t hat no recovery of c ontraband has been effected fro m the petitioner.

¶22

I h ave heard learned counsel for the parties and have perused the material availa b le on record. 7. Wi t hout expressing any opinion o n the merits of the case, it is evi d ent that the present petitioner has been nominated in the present case on the basi s of the disclosure s t atement of co-accused Jaswant, who himself was nominated on the basis of disclos u re statements of co-accused R a man alias Chhota and Sumit alias Koki, from wh o se possession the alleged reco v ery of Charas (Sulfa) weighi n g 1 kilogram and 22 grams was effected. Ad m ittedly, no contraband has been recovered fro m the possession of the presen t petitioner and the only reco v ery attributed to hi m is ₹3,000/-. The petitioner ha s been in custody since 05.06.2 0 25 and the trial is l i kely to take time to conclude.

¶23

Th e evidentiary value of a disclos u re statement of a co-accused, in the absence of reco v ery or corroboration is weak i n view of the settled position of l aw laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court i n ‘ 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:

¶24

" T h e petitioner is alleged to have committed offences under Sect i ons 15 and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances A ct, 19 8 5 (hereinafter called the ND PS Act)". His application for an t icipatory bail was rejected by t h e High Court. Th e allegations in the FIR are t h at 1.7 Kg of Poppy Straw (D o da Po s t) was recovered from the co- a ccused. The petitioner conced e dly wa s not present at the spot but w as named by the co-accused. T hat ap a rt there is no other materia l to implicate the petitioner. T he pr o secution urges that another cas e with allegations of commissio n of

¶25

TRIPTI SAINI 2026.03.09 16:45 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶26

CRM-M-54636-2025 (O&M) -4-

¶27

of fe nce under the NDPS Act are p ending against the petitioner. I t is no t denied that in those proceed i ngs he was granted bail. Ha v ing re g ard to these circumstances, the petitioner is directed to the en l arged on anticipatory bail, subject to such terms and condition s as th e trial Court may impose. The pe t ition is allowed.”

¶28

As regards the submission o f learned State counsel t hat petitioner is inv o lved in another case of similar nature, reference is placed upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in ‘ Maulana Mohd. Amir Rashadi Vs. State of U.P. and another’, 2012 (2) SCC 382 in w hich, it is held that the facts and circumstances o f the present case are to be seen w hile deciding a bail application and the bail applicat i on of the petitioner cannot be r e jected solely on the ground that the petitioner is in v olved in other/ another cases). The relevant portion of the s aid judgment is reproduced hereinbelow:-

¶29

"A s observed by the High Court , merely on the basis of crim i nal an t ecedents, the claim of the second respondent cannot be rejecte d . In other words, it is the duty of the Co u rt to find out the role of the acc u sed in the case in which h e has been charged a nd other circumstances such as po s sibility of fleeing away from the jur i sdiction of the Court etc."

¶30

In view of the aforesaid circumst a nces, particularly the fact that the petitioner has b e en implicated on the basis of d i sclosure statement of a co-accu s ed, no recovery of c ontraband has been effected fr o m him and considering the pe r iod of custody already undergone by the petition e r, this Court is of the consid e red opinion that the petitioner deserves the concession of regular bail. 11. Co n sequently, the present petitio n is allowed and the petitione r is ordered to be r eleased on regular bail subjec t to his furnishing bail bonds a nd