11 CRM-M-23097CRMCRMCRM 2309723097230977-2026202620262026 129129129129 ININININ TTTTHEHEHEHE HIGHHIGHHIGHHIGH COURTCOURTCOURTCOURT OFOFOFOF PUNJABPUNJABPUNJABPUNJABBBBB ANDANDANDAND HARYANAHARYANAHARYANAHARYANA ATATATAT CHANDIGARCHANDIGARCHANDIGARCHANDIGARRHRHRHRH CRM-M-23097CRMCRMCRM 23097-22309723097 2026202620262026 Promila @ MMeera @ Meera ….Petitionerr versus State of Haryyana ….Respondentt DateDateDateDate ofofofof DeciDeciDeciDeciisionisionsion:sion ::: JulyJulyJulyJuly 16,161616,,, 2026202620262026 DateDateDateDate ofofofof UploUploUploUplooading:oading:oading:oading: JulyJulyJulyJuly 16,161616,,, 2026202620262026 CORAM:CORAM:CORAM:CORAM: HON’BLEHON’BLEHON’BLEHON’BLE MR.MR.MR.MR. JUSTICEJUSTICEJUSTICEJUSTICE SUMSUMSUMSUMMEETMEETMEETMEET GOELGOELGOELGOEL Present:-Present:Present:Present: Mr. Shivam Chaudhary, Advocaate for the petitioner. Mr. Gurmeet Singh, AAG Haryaana. ******************** SUMEETSUMEETSUMEETSUMEET GOGOGOGOOEL,OELOELOEL,,, J.J.J.J. (ORAL)(ORAL)(ORAL)(ORAL) Present petition has been fileed under Section 483 of thee Bharatiya Naagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short ‘BNSS’) for grant off regular bail tto the petitioner, in case bearinng FIR No.66 dated 15.03.2026,, registered foor the offences punishable undeer Sections 18(b) and 29 of thee Narcotic Druugs and Psychotropic Substancees Act, 1985 (for short ‘NDPSS Act’), at Poliice Station City Jagadhri, Districct Yamuna Nagar.

2. The gravamen of FIR in questio n pertains to alleged recovery off 5 kg. 10 gramms of opium from co-accused, nnamely, Najra Khatun and Tufann Khatun. MAHAVIR SINGH 2026.07.16 18:17 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/ judgment 2 CRM-M-23097CRMCRMCRM 23097-20262309723097 202620262026 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has iterated that the petitioner is in custody since 17.03.2026. Learned counsel has further submitted that the petitioner has been falsely implicated into the FIR in question. Learned counsel has iterated that mandatory provisions of the NDPS Act have not scrupulously been complied with, and thus, the prosecution case suffers from inherent defects. Learned counsel has further iterated that assuming arguendo, the prosecution version is taken to be correct, the petitioner has been nominated into the FIR question on the basis of disclosure of co-accused. Learned counsel has further iterated that the petitioner has suffered incarceration for more than 03 months. Thus, regular bail is prayed for. 4. 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 14.07.2026, 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 17.03.2026 and is in continuous custody since then. The culmination of investigation and the trial emanating therefrom, in case, occasion so arises, will take long time. The petitioner has been implicated as an accused in the FIR in question solely on the basis of disclosure statement of co-accused. 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 MAHAVIR SINGH 2026.07.16 18:17 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/ judgment 3 CRM-M-23097CRMCRMCRM 23097-20262309723097 202620262026

statements, in the absence of corroborative evidence hold limited evidentiary value and cannot be sole basis for implicating the 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 by this Court in AnshulAnshulAnshulAnshul SardanaSardanaSardanaSardana versusversusversusversus StateStateStateState ofofofof Punjab,PunjabPunjabPunjab passed in CRM-M-6509CRMCRMCRM 65094-202465096509 202420242024 (2025: PHHC:004198), wherein, after relying upon the ratio 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 awellestablishedprinciple oflawthataconfession made by a co-accused under Section 67 of the NDPS Act is inherently a very weak piece of evidence. Such statement(s), bythemselves, cannot formthe sole basis forthe MAHAVIR SINGH 2026.07.16 18:17 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/ judgment 4 CRM-M-23097CRMCRMCRM 23097-20262309723097 202620262026

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,asregular bail pertainstolifeandlibertyof 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 fall within 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 ensurethattheprocessoflawisnotmisused,abusedormisdirected.” 6.2. As per custody certificate dated 14.07.2026 filed by the learned State counsel, the petitioner has already suffered incarceration for a period of 03 months and 28 days, & is not shown to be involved in any other FIR(s).

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.allowedallowedallowed Petitioner is ordered to be released on regular bail, if not required in any other case, on her 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 herself on any date before the trial. (iv) The petitioner shall not commit any offence while on bail. (v) The petitioner shall deposit her passport, if any, with the trial Court. (vi) The petitioner shall give her cellphone number to the Investigating Officer/SHO of concerned Police Station MAHAVIR SINGH 2026.07.16 18:17 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/ judgment 5 CRM-M-23097CRMCRMCRM 23097-20262309723097 202620262026 and shall not change her 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 she 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 her being enlarged on bail in the present FIR, on the basis of her affidavit or otherwise, the State is mandated to move, forthwith, for cancellation of her 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. (SUMEETSUMEETSUMEETSUMEET GOEL)GOELGOELGOEL JUDGEJUDGEJUDGEJUDGE JulyJulyJulyJuly 16,161616,,, 2026202620262026 mahavir Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No Whether reportable: Yes/No MAHAVIR SINGH 2026.07.16 18:17 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/ judgment

11 CRM-M-23097CRMCRMCRM 2309723097230977-2026202620262026 129129129129 ININININ TTTTHEHEHEHE HIGHHIGHHIGHHIGH COURTCOURTCOURTCOURT OFOFOFOF PUNJABPUNJABPUNJABPUNJABBBBB ANDANDANDAND HARYANAHARYANAHARYANAHARYANA ATATATAT CHANDIGARCHANDIGARCHANDIGARCHANDIGARRHRHRHRH CRM-M-23097CRMCRMCRM 23097-22309723097 2026202620262026 Promila @ MMeera @ Meera ….Petitionerr versus State of Haryyana ….Respondentt DateDateDateDate ofofofof DeciDeciDeciDeciisionisionsion:sion ::: JulyJulyJulyJuly 16,161616,,, 2026202620262026 DateDateDateDate ofofofof UploUploUploUplooading:oading:oading:oading: JulyJulyJulyJuly 16,161616,,, 2026202620262026 CORAM:CORAM:CORAM:CORAM: HON’BLEHON’BLEHON’BLEHON’BLE MR.MR.MR.MR. JUSTICEJUSTICEJUSTICEJUSTICE SUMSUMSUMSUMMEETMEETMEETMEET GOELGOELGOELGOEL Present:-Present:Present:Present: Mr. Shivam Chaudhary, Advocaate for the petitioner. Mr. Gurmeet Singh, AAG Haryaana. ******************** SUMEETSUMEETSUMEETSUMEET GOGOGOGOOEL,OELOELOEL,,, J.J.J.J. (ORAL)(ORAL)(ORAL)(ORAL) Present petition has been fileed under Section 483 of thee Bharatiya Naagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short ‘BNSS’) for grant off regular bail tto the petitioner, in case bearinng FIR No.66 dated 15.03.2026,, registered foor the offences punishable undeer Sections 18(b) and 29 of thee Narcotic Druugs and Psychotropic Substancees Act, 1985 (for short ‘NDPSS Act’), at Poliice Station City Jagadhri, Districct Yamuna Nagar.

2. The gravamen of FIR in questio n pertains to alleged recovery off 5 kg. 10 gramms of opium from co-accused, nnamely, Najra Khatun and Tufann Khatun. MAHAVIR SINGH 2026.07.16 18:17 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/ judgment 2 CRM-M-23097CRMCRMCRM 23097-20262309723097 202620262026 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has iterated that the petitioner is in custody since 17.03.2026. Learned counsel has further submitted that the petitioner has been falsely implicated into the FIR in question. Learned counsel has iterated that mandatory provisions of the NDPS Act have not scrupulously been complied with, and thus, the prosecution case suffers from inherent defects. Learned counsel has further iterated that assuming arguendo, the prosecution version is taken to be correct, the petitioner has been nominated into the FIR question on the basis of disclosure of co-accused. Learned counsel has further iterated that the petitioner has suffered incarceration for more than 03 months. Thus, regular bail is prayed for. 4. 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 14.07.2026, 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 17.03.2026 and is in continuous custody since then. The culmination of investigation and the trial emanating therefrom, in case, occasion so arises, will take long time. The petitioner has been implicated as an accused in the FIR in question solely on the basis of disclosure statement of co-accused. 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 MAHAVIR SINGH 2026.07.16 18:17 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/ judgment 3 CRM-M-23097CRMCRMCRM 23097-20262309723097 202620262026

statements, in the absence of corroborative evidence hold limited evidentiary value and cannot be sole basis for implicating the 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 by this Court in AnshulAnshulAnshulAnshul SardanaSardanaSardanaSardana versusversusversusversus StateStateStateState ofofofof Punjab,PunjabPunjabPunjab passed in CRM-M-6509CRMCRMCRM 65094-202465096509 202420242024 (2025: PHHC:004198), wherein, after relying upon the ratio 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 awellestablishedprinciple oflawthataconfession made by a co-accused under Section 67 of the NDPS Act is inherently a very weak piece of evidence. Such statement(s), bythemselves, cannot formthe sole basis forthe MAHAVIR SINGH 2026.07.16 18:17 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/ judgment 4 CRM-M-23097CRMCRMCRM 23097-20262309723097 202620262026

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,asregular bail pertainstolifeandlibertyof 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 fall within 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 ensurethattheprocessoflawisnotmisused,abusedormisdirected.” 6.2. As per custody certificate dated 14.07.2026 filed by the learned State counsel, the petitioner has already suffered incarceration for a period of 03 months and 28 days, & is not shown to be involved in any other FIR(s).

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.allowedallowedallowed Petitioner is ordered to be released on regular bail, if not required in any other case, on her 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 herself on any date before the trial. (iv) The petitioner shall not commit any offence while on bail. (v) The petitioner shall deposit her passport, if any, with the trial Court. (vi) The petitioner shall give her cellphone number to the Investigating Officer/SHO of concerned Police Station MAHAVIR SINGH 2026.07.16 18:17 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/ judgment 5 CRM-M-23097CRMCRMCRM 23097-20262309723097 202620262026 and shall not change her 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 she 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 her being enlarged on bail in the present FIR, on the basis of her affidavit or otherwise, the State is mandated to move, forthwith, for cancellation of her 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. (SUMEETSUMEETSUMEETSUMEET GOEL)GOELGOELGOEL JUDGEJUDGEJUDGEJUDGE JulyJulyJulyJuly 16,161616,,, 2026202620262026 mahavir Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No Whether reportable: Yes/No MAHAVIR SINGH 2026.07.16 18:17 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/ judgment