IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M No.26076 of 2026 Azruddin ... Petitioner Versus State of Haryana ... Respondent 1. The date when the judgment is reserved 15.07.2026 2. The date when the judgment is pronounced 16.07.2026 3. The date when the judgment is uploaded on the 16.07.2026 website 4. Whether only operative part of the judgment is Full pronounced or whether the full judgment is pronounced 5. The delay, if any, of the pronouncement of full Not applicable judgment, and reasons thereof CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANISHA BATRA Present: Mr. Gaurav Dutt, Senior Advocate with Mr. Jamshed Ahmed, Advocate and Mr. Yajur Mago, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Neeraj Poswal, AAG, Haryana, for the respondent-State. *** MANISHA BATRA , J. 1. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner under MANJU 2026.07.16 18:28 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order /judgment Chandigarh CRM-M No.26076 of 2026 -2- Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short ‘BNSS’) seeking regular bail in the FIR mentioned below:-FIR No. Dated Police Station Sections 56 25.01.2023 Hodal, District Palwal 20(b)(ii)(C) of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short ‘NDPS Act’)

2. As per the allegations, on 25.01.2023, on receipt of a secret information to the effect that one canter bearing registration No.HR74B-0549 was to go through the area of Mewat towards Mathura (Uttar Pradesh) and ganja was concealed in that canter which could be recovered, a raiding party was formed which reached in the area of NH-19 Ujina Drain, Hodal and laid a barricade. The aforementioned canter was found coming from the area of Kosi Kalan, UP after sometime. The same was stopped by giving signal. The driver of the vehicle stopped the vehicle but managed to flee. On conducting search, several bags of cotton seeds Binola were found kept in the body of the canter. On conducting further search, 19 bags containing 561.750 kgs of ganja were recovered which were taken into custody. The accused Jameel @ Jamil Ahmed was arrested during the course of investigation. He suffered disclosure statement on the basis of which accused Jahul was nominated as a co-accused on the allegations that he had taken the empty canter to Odisha and had assisted in loading the contraband in the said vehicle. MANJU2026.07.16 18:28 3. Subsequently, accused Sabir was arrested on 22.05.2025. He I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order /judgment Chandigarh CRM-M No.26076 of 2026 -3-

suffered disclosure statement admitting his involvement in the crime and disclosed that he was a member of gang of his elder brother Jameel who was involved in smuggling of contraband at big level. He disclosed that the present petitioner was also a member of that gang. As further disclosed by him, accused Jameel, Jahul and the present petitioner who was also a member of their gang had gone to Odisha with a vehicle for the purpose of taking supply of contraband. After getting the same loaded in Odisha, accused Jameel had informed him. He disclosed that on 25.01.2023, on receipt of Whatsapp call from accused Jameel, he had reached at Mathura bypass whereas the petitioner along with co-accused Jameel and Jahul was found present and then he had occupied vehicle containing contraband. The petitioner and co-accused were sitting in the same. He disclosed that on being stopped by the police officials, he along with the petitioner had fled from the same. The petitioner was nominated as accused and was arrested on 16.10.2025. He too suffered disclosure statement admitting his involvement in the crime. Investigation now stands completed.

4. It is argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that he has been falsely implicated in this case on the basis of disclosure statement of co-accused which cannot be considered to be legally admissible in evidence. He was not named in the FIR. No recovery has been effected from him. He is in custody since long. The co-accused Jahul has been extended benefit of bail. On parity, he too deserves to be extended the same benefit. It is, MANJU2026.07.16 18:28 therefore, argued that the petition deserves to be allowed. I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order /judgment Chandigarh CRM-M No.26076 of 2026 -4- 5. Per contra, learned State counsel has argued that taking into consideration the gravity of the allegations as levelled against the petitioner, he does not deserve to be extended benefit of bail. 6. This Court has considered the rival submissions.

7. The well settled proposition of law is that the Court while considering an application for grant of bail has to keep certain factors in mind, such as, whether there is a prima facie case or reasonable ground to believe that the accused has committed the offence; circumstances which are peculiar to the accused; likelihood of the offence being repeated; the nature and gravity of the accusation; severity of the punishment in the event of conviction; the danger of accused absconding or fleeing, if released on bail and reasonable apprehension of the witnesses being threatened. The period of incarceration is also relevant fact that is to be considered. It is also unequivocally established that, to be granted bail, the accused charged with offence under the provisions of NDPS Act must fulfill the conditions stipulated in Section 37 of the NDPS Act. 8. The case of the prosecution is that the name of the petitioner was disclosed by the co-accused. In Tofan Singh Vs. State of Tamil Nadu, (2021) 4 SCC 1, it was observed by Hon’ble Apex Court that the disclosure statements made under Section 67 of NDPS Act, are inadmissible in evidence unless corroborated by independent material. While the veracity of the disclosure statement against the petitioner will be tested during the MANJU2026.07.16 18:28 course of trial, however, at this stage, it cannot be ignored that no recovery I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order /judgment Chandigarh CRM-M No.26076 of 2026 -5-

was ever effected from the petitioner. The petitioner is in custody since 16.10.2025. Challan has been presented. The trial will take time. The object of jail is to secure the appearance of the accused during the trial and it can neither be punitive nor preventive and the deprivation of liberty has been considered as a punishment. As per the discussion made above, this Court is of the considered opinion that a case for release of the petitioner is made out. Accordingly, the petition is allowed and the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail subject to his furnishing personal/surety bonds to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court/Chief Judicial Magistrate/ Duty Magistrate concerned and on the following conditions:- (i) the petitioner shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case or tamper with the evidence of the case in any manner whatsoever. (ii) he shall not leave the country under any circumstance without permission of the learned trial Court. (iii) he shall appear before the learned trial Court as and when directed. (iv) he shall provide his permanent address as well as present address before the learned trial Court at the time of furnishing of bonds and shall not change the same without informing the trial Court. MANJU2026.07.16 18:28 (v) He shall also give details of his mobile phone number(s) to I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order /judgment Chandigarh

CRM-M No.26076 of 2026 -6- the learned trial Court at the time of furnishing of bonds and in case, any change in his mobile phone number takes place, then he shall inform about the same to the learned trial Court in advance and shall keep his mobile phone switch on all times. 9. In the event of there being any FIR/complaint lodged against the petitioner, it shall be open to the respondent to seek redressal by filing an application seeking cancellation of bail. 10. It is, however, clarified that the observations made hereinabove shall not be construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case and shall not influence the outcome of the trial. (MANISHA BATRA) 16.07.2026 JUDGE manju Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether reportable Yes/No MANJU 2026.07.16 18:28 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order /judgment Chandigarh

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M No.26076 of 2026 Azruddin ... Petitioner Versus State of Haryana ... Respondent 1. The date when the judgment is reserved 15.07.2026 2. The date when the judgment is pronounced 16.07.2026 3. The date when the judgment is uploaded on the 16.07.2026 website 4. Whether only operative part of the judgment is Full pronounced or whether the full judgment is pronounced 5. The delay, if any, of the pronouncement of full Not applicable judgment, and reasons thereof CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANISHA BATRA Present: Mr. Gaurav Dutt, Senior Advocate with Mr. Jamshed Ahmed, Advocate and Mr. Yajur Mago, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Neeraj Poswal, AAG, Haryana, for the respondent-State. *** MANISHA BATRA , J. 1. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner under MANJU 2026.07.16 18:28 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order /judgment Chandigarh CRM-M No.26076 of 2026 -2- Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short ‘BNSS’) seeking regular bail in the FIR mentioned below:-FIR No. Dated Police Station Sections 56 25.01.2023 Hodal, District Palwal 20(b)(ii)(C) of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short ‘NDPS Act’)

2. As per the allegations, on 25.01.2023, on receipt of a secret information to the effect that one canter bearing registration No.HR74B-0549 was to go through the area of Mewat towards Mathura (Uttar Pradesh) and ganja was concealed in that canter which could be recovered, a raiding party was formed which reached in the area of NH-19 Ujina Drain, Hodal and laid a barricade. The aforementioned canter was found coming from the area of Kosi Kalan, UP after sometime. The same was stopped by giving signal. The driver of the vehicle stopped the vehicle but managed to flee. On conducting search, several bags of cotton seeds Binola were found kept in the body of the canter. On conducting further search, 19 bags containing 561.750 kgs of ganja were recovered which were taken into custody. The accused Jameel @ Jamil Ahmed was arrested during the course of investigation. He suffered disclosure statement on the basis of which accused Jahul was nominated as a co-accused on the allegations that he had taken the empty canter to Odisha and had assisted in loading the contraband in the said vehicle. MANJU2026.07.16 18:28 3. Subsequently, accused Sabir was arrested on 22.05.2025. He I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order /judgment Chandigarh CRM-M No.26076 of 2026 -3-

suffered disclosure statement admitting his involvement in the crime and disclosed that he was a member of gang of his elder brother Jameel who was involved in smuggling of contraband at big level. He disclosed that the present petitioner was also a member of that gang. As further disclosed by him, accused Jameel, Jahul and the present petitioner who was also a member of their gang had gone to Odisha with a vehicle for the purpose of taking supply of contraband. After getting the same loaded in Odisha, accused Jameel had informed him. He disclosed that on 25.01.2023, on receipt of Whatsapp call from accused Jameel, he had reached at Mathura bypass whereas the petitioner along with co-accused Jameel and Jahul was found present and then he had occupied vehicle containing contraband. The petitioner and co-accused were sitting in the same. He disclosed that on being stopped by the police officials, he along with the petitioner had fled from the same. The petitioner was nominated as accused and was arrested on 16.10.2025. He too suffered disclosure statement admitting his involvement in the crime. Investigation now stands completed.

4. It is argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that he has been falsely implicated in this case on the basis of disclosure statement of co-accused which cannot be considered to be legally admissible in evidence. He was not named in the FIR. No recovery has been effected from him. He is in custody since long. The co-accused Jahul has been extended benefit of bail. On parity, he too deserves to be extended the same benefit. It is, MANJU2026.07.16 18:28 therefore, argued that the petition deserves to be allowed. I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order /judgment Chandigarh CRM-M No.26076 of 2026 -4- 5. Per contra, learned State counsel has argued that taking into consideration the gravity of the allegations as levelled against the petitioner, he does not deserve to be extended benefit of bail. 6. This Court has considered the rival submissions.

7. The well settled proposition of law is that the Court while considering an application for grant of bail has to keep certain factors in mind, such as, whether there is a prima facie case or reasonable ground to believe that the accused has committed the offence; circumstances which are peculiar to the accused; likelihood of the offence being repeated; the nature and gravity of the accusation; severity of the punishment in the event of conviction; the danger of accused absconding or fleeing, if released on bail and reasonable apprehension of the witnesses being threatened. The period of incarceration is also relevant fact that is to be considered. It is also unequivocally established that, to be granted bail, the accused charged with offence under the provisions of NDPS Act must fulfill the conditions stipulated in Section 37 of the NDPS Act. 8. The case of the prosecution is that the name of the petitioner was disclosed by the co-accused. In Tofan Singh Vs. State of Tamil Nadu, (2021) 4 SCC 1, it was observed by Hon’ble Apex Court that the disclosure statements made under Section 67 of NDPS Act, are inadmissible in evidence unless corroborated by independent material. While the veracity of the disclosure statement against the petitioner will be tested during the MANJU2026.07.16 18:28 course of trial, however, at this stage, it cannot be ignored that no recovery I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order /judgment Chandigarh CRM-M No.26076 of 2026 -5-

was ever effected from the petitioner. The petitioner is in custody since 16.10.2025. Challan has been presented. The trial will take time. The object of jail is to secure the appearance of the accused during the trial and it can neither be punitive nor preventive and the deprivation of liberty has been considered as a punishment. As per the discussion made above, this Court is of the considered opinion that a case for release of the petitioner is made out. Accordingly, the petition is allowed and the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail subject to his furnishing personal/surety bonds to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court/Chief Judicial Magistrate/ Duty Magistrate concerned and on the following conditions:- (i) the petitioner shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case or tamper with the evidence of the case in any manner whatsoever. (ii) he shall not leave the country under any circumstance without permission of the learned trial Court. (iii) he shall appear before the learned trial Court as and when directed. (iv) he shall provide his permanent address as well as present address before the learned trial Court at the time of furnishing of bonds and shall not change the same without informing the trial Court. MANJU2026.07.16 18:28 (v) He shall also give details of his mobile phone number(s) to I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order /judgment Chandigarh

CRM-M No.26076 of 2026 -6- the learned trial Court at the time of furnishing of bonds and in case, any change in his mobile phone number takes place, then he shall inform about the same to the learned trial Court in advance and shall keep his mobile phone switch on all times. 9. In the event of there being any FIR/complaint lodged against the petitioner, it shall be open to the respondent to seek redressal by filing an application seeking cancellation of bail. 10. It is, however, clarified that the observations made hereinabove shall not be construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case and shall not influence the outcome of the trial. (MANISHA BATRA) 16.07.2026 JUDGE manju Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether reportable Yes/No MANJU 2026.07.16 18:28 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order /judgment Chandigarh