Punjab and Haryana High Court – Regular Bail Granted in NDPS Case Where Accused Implicated Only Through Co-Accused’s Disclosure

Case Name: Chander Parkash @ J.P. v. State of Haryana

Citation: CRM-M No. 48902 of 2019

Date of Judgment: 6 January 2020

Bench: Justice Arvind Singh Sangwan

Held: The Punjab and Haryana High Court granted regular bail to the petitioner in an NDPS case where his name appeared only in the disclosure statement of a co-accused. The Court noted that the co-accused, from whom contraband was actually recovered, had already been granted bail, and the petitioner was not involved in any other NDPS case. Considering that the petitioner had already spent more than six months in custody and trial had not commenced, bail was justified.

Summary: FIR No. 198 dated 23.07.2018 was registered at Police Station Sadar Dabwali, District Sirsa, under Sections 21 and 22-C of the NDPS Act after 75 boxes of Tramadol Hydrochloride tablets were allegedly recovered from Bhim Sain. During interrogation, Bhim Sain disclosed the petitioner’s name, on the basis of which he was arrested. The petitioner had earlier been granted interim bail awaiting FSL report but was later taken into custody again. His previous bail application was dismissed for technical reasons. Meanwhile, co-accused Bhim Sain and another co-accused Rajender Parshad @ Raju had both been granted regular bail by the High Court.

The petitioner argued that since the main accused had been enlarged on bail, there was no justification for his continued custody, especially when his implication rested solely on the disclosure of Bhim Sain. The State did not dispute that the petitioner was nominated only on the basis of disclosure and that he had no other criminal involvement. The Court observed that with the main recovery effected from Bhim Sain and co-accused already on bail, continued detention of the petitioner served no purpose as custodial interrogation was no longer required.

Decision: Without commenting on the merits of the case, the High Court allowed the petition and directed the release of the petitioner on regular bail subject to his furnishing bail and surety bonds to the satisfaction of the trial court. It clarified that the prosecution would be at liberty to seek cancellation of bail if the petitioner was found misusing the concession or involved in any other offence.