Nitesh Kumar @Sanju@ Nitaish Kumar vs State Of Punjab

1
CRM CRM-M-46315 CRM CRM 46315 46315-2026 46315 2026 2026 2026


114 114 114 114
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT AT
CHANDIGARH CHANDIGARH
CHANDIGARH CHANDIGARH

CRM CRM-M-46315 CRM CRM 46315 46315-2026 46315 2026 2026 2026

Nitesh Kumar @ Sanju @ Nitaish Kumar
….Petitioner
versus
State of Punjab
….Respondent

Date of decision: Date of decision: November 03 Date of decision: Date of decision: November 03 November 03, 2026 November 03 , 2026 , 2026 , 2026
Date of Uploading: Date of Uploading: November 03 Date of Uploading: Date of Uploading: November 03 November 03, 2026 November 03 , 2026 , 2026 , 2026

CORAM: CORAM: CORAM: CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL

Present: Present:- Present: Present: Ms. Rashi Verma, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Adhiraj Singh Thind, AAG Punjab.



SUMEET GOEL, J. (ORAL) SUMEET GOEL , J. (ORAL)
SUMEET GOEL SUMEET GOEL , J. (ORAL) , J. (ORAL)

Present petition has been filed under Section 483 of the
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short ‘BNSS’) for grant of
regular bail to the petitioner, in case bearing FIR No.107 dated 13.07.2024,
registered for the offences punishable under Sections 21, 23, 29 of the NDPS
Act, 1985, at Police Station City Jalalabad, District Fazilka.
2. The FIR in question pertains to recovery of 2 kg. 600 grams of
Heroin.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has iterated that the petitioner
is in custody since 14.05.2026. Learned counsel has iterated that the petitioner
has been falsely implicated into the FIR in question. Learned counsel has
further iterated that mandatory provisions of NDPS Act have not been







MAHAVIR SINGH
2026.11.03 17:37
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this order/ judgment

2
CRM CRM-M-46315 CRM CRM 46315 46315-2026 46315 2026 2026 2026

complied with and, thus, the prosecution case suffers from inherent defects.
Learned counsel has further iterated that sole basis to array the petitioner as
an accused is the disclosure statement of co-accused, namely, Baljit Singh @
Kaka, which per se is not admissible in law. Learned counsel has iterated that
the trial is delayed and the liability thereof cannot be fastened upon the
petitioner. Learned counsel has urged that co-accused of the petitioner,
namely, Balwinder Singh @ Bohra and Baljeet Singh @ Baljit Singh @ Kala
have been granted the concession of regular bail by this Court, vide orders
dated 03.12.2025 passed in CRM CRM CRM-M-49497 CRM 49497 49497-2025 49497 2025 2025 and dated 30.04.2026 2025
passed in CRM CRM CRM-M-22885 CRM 22885 22885-2026 22885 2026 2026, respectively. Learned counsel has further 2026
iterated that the petitioner suffered incarceration for more than 05 months.
Thus, regular bail is prayed for.
4. Learned State counsel has filed short reply by way of an affidavit
dated 18.10.2026, which is already on record. Raising submissions in tandem
with the said reply, 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 counsel has further submitted that the instant bail plea is barred by
the rigors of Section 37 of the NDPS Act, and thus, the same ought to be
dismissed. Learned State counsel seeks to place on record the custody
certificate dated 02.11.2026, 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 14.05.2026, whereinafter, the
investigation was carried out and the challan qua the petitioner has been







MAHAVIR SINGH
2026.11.03 17:37
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this order/ judgment

3
CRM CRM-M-46315 CRM CRM 46315 46315-2026 46315 2026 2026 2026

presented on 10.08.2026. Total 28 prosecution witnesses have been cited, out
of which, none has been examined till date. Indubitably, conclusion of the
trial will take long. The petitioner has been implicated as an accused into 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 statement, 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 Anshul Sardana versus State of Punjab Anshul Sardana versus State of Punjab, Anshul Sardana versus State of Punjab Anshul Sardana versus State of Punjab passed in
CRM CRM-M-65094 CRM CRM 65094 65094-2024 65094 2024 2024 (2025: PHHC:004198) 2024 , 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,







MAHAVIR SINGH
2026.11.03 17:37
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this order/ judgment

4
CRM CRM-M-46315 CRM CRM 46315 46315-2026 46315 2026 2026 2026

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 a well established principle of law that a confession
made by a co-accused under Section 67 of the NDPS Act is inherently a
very weak piece of evidence. Such statement(s), by themselves, cannot
form the sole basis for the 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, as regular
bail pertains to life and liberty of 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 ensure that the process of law is
not misused, abused or misdirected.
”

6.2. Further, this Court in the case of Jaswinder Singh alias Kala Jaswinder Singh alias Kala Jaswinder Singh alias Kala Jaswinder Singh alias Kala
versus State of Punjab versus State of Punjab versus State of Punjab versus State of Punjab passed in CRM CRM-M-33729 CRM CRM 33729 33729-2025 33729 2025 2025 (2025:PHHC:089161) 2025
has held thus:
“ 14. As a sequitur to above-said rumination, the following
postulates emerge:
(I) (i) A bail plea on merits; in respect of an FIR under NDPS Act
of 1985 involving offence(s) under Section 19 or Section 24 or
Section 27-A thereof and for offence(s) involving commercial
quantity; is essentially required to meet with the rigour(s) of Section
37 of NDPS Act.

(ii) The rigour(s) of Section 37 of NDPS Act do not apply to a
bail plea(s) on medical ground(s), interim bail on account of any
exigency including the reason of demise of a close family relative
etc.

(iii) The rigour(s) of Section 37 of NDPS Act pale into oblivion
when bail is sought for on account of long incarceration in view of
Article 21 of the Constitution of India i.e. where the bail-applicant
has suffered long under-trial custody, the trial is procrastinating and
folly thereof is not attributable to such bail-applicant.







MAHAVIR SINGH
2026.11.03 17:37
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this order/ judgment

5
CRM CRM-M-46315 CRM CRM 46315 46315-2026 46315 2026 2026 2026


II. The twin conditions contained in Section 37(1)(b) of NDPS Act are
in addition to the conditions/parameters contained in Cr.P.C./BNSS
or any other applicable extant law.

III. The twin conditions contained in Section 37(1)(b) of NDPS Act are
cumulative in nature and not alternative i.e. both the conditions are
required to be satisfied for a bail-plea to be successful.

IV. For consideration by bail Court of the condition stipulated in Section
37(1)(b)(i) of NDPS Act i.e. “there are reasonable grounds for
believing that he is not guilty of such offence”:

(i) The bail Court ought to sift through all relevant
material, including case-dairy, exclusively for the limited
purpose of adjudicating such bail plea.

(ii) Such consideration, concerning the assessment of
guilt or innocence, should not mirror the same degree of
scrutiny required for an acquittal of the accused at the final
adjudication & culmination of trial.

(iii) Plea(s) of defence by applicant-accused, if any,
including material/documents in support thereof, may be
looked into by the bail-Court while adjudicating such bail
plea.

V. For consideration of the condition stipulated in Section 37(1)(b)(ii)
i.e. ‘he is not likely to commit any offence while on bail’:
(i) The word ‘likely’ ought to be interpreted as requiring
a demonstrable and substantial probability of re-offending by
the bail-applicant, rather than a mere theoretical one, as no
Court can predict future conduct of the bail-applicant.

(ii) The entire factual matrix of a given case including
the antecedents of the bail-applicant, role ascribed to him,
and the nature of offence are required to be delved into.
However, the involvement of bail-applicant in another
NDPS/other offence cannot ipso facto result in the
conclusion of his propensity for committing offence in the
future.

(iii) The bail-Court may, at the time of granting bail,
impose upon the applicant-accused a condition that he would
submit, at such regular time period/interval as may stipulated
by the Court granting bail, an affidavit before concerned
Special Judge of NDPS Court/Illaqa (Jurisdictional) Judicial
Magistrate/concerned Police Station, to the effect that he has
not been involved in commission of any offence after being
released on bail. In the facts of a given case, imposition of
such condition may be considered to be sufficient for
satisfaction of condition enumerated in Section 37(1)(b)(ii).

VI. There is no gainsaying that the nature, mode and extent of exercise
of power by a Court; while satisfying itself regarding the conditions
stipulated in Section 37 of NDPS Act; shall depend upon the judicial
discretion exercised by such Court in the facts and circumstances of







MAHAVIR SINGH
2026.11.03 17:37
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this order/ judgment

6
CRM CRM-M-46315 CRM CRM 46315 46315-2026 46315 2026 2026 2026

a given case. No exhaustive guidelines can possibly be laid down as
to what would constitute parameters for satisfaction of requirement
under Section 37 (ibid) as every case has its own unique
facts/circumstances. Making such an attempt is nothing but a
utopian endeavour. Ergo, this issue is best left to the judicial
wisdom and discretion of the Court dealing with such matter.
”

In this view of the matter, the rigor imposed under Section 37 of
the NDPS Act stands diluted in light of the Article 21 of the Constitution of
India.
6.3. As per custody certificate dated 02.11.2026 filed by the learned
State counsel, the petitioner has already suffered incarceration for a period of
05 months and 18 days.
6.4. Further, as per the said custody certificate, the petitioner is stated
to be involved in other FIR(s). However, this factum cannot be a ground
sufficient by itself, to decline the concession of regular bail to the petitioner in
the FIR in question when a case is made out for grant of regular bail qua the
FIR in question by ratiocinating upon the facts/circumstances of the said FIR.
Reliance in this regard can be placed upon the judgment of the Hon’ble
Supreme Court in Maulana Mohd. Amir Rashadi v. State of U.P. and another, Maulana Mohd. Amir Rashadi v. State of U.P. and another, Maulana Mohd. Amir Rashadi v. State of U.P. and another, Maulana Mohd. Amir Rashadi v. State of U.P. and another,
2012 (1) RCR (Criminal) 586 2012 (1) RCR (Criminal) 586 2012 (1) RCR (Criminal) 586 2012 (1) RCR (Criminal) 586 ; a Division Bench judgment of the Hon’ble
Calcutta High Court in case of Sridhar Das v. State, 1998 (2) RCR (Criminal) Sridhar Das v. State, 1998 (2) RCR (Criminal) Sridhar Das v. State, 1998 (2) RCR (Criminal) Sridhar Das v. State, 1998 (2) RCR (Criminal)
477 477 477 477 & judgments of this Court in CRM-M No.38822-2022 titled as Akhilesh Akhilesh Akhilesh Akhilesh
Singh v. State of Haryana Singh v. State of Haryana Singh v. State of Haryana Singh v. State of Haryana , decided on 29.11.2021, and Balraj v. State of Balraj v. State of Balraj v. State of Balraj v. State of
Haryana, 1998 (3) RCR (Criminal) 191. Haryana, 1998 (3) RCR (Criminal) 191. Haryana, 1998 (3) RCR (Criminal) 191. Haryana, 1998 (3) RCR (Criminal) 191.
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 allowed allowed. Petitioner is allowed
ordered to be released on regular bail, if not required in any other case, on his







MAHAVIR SINGH
2026.11.03 17:37
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this order/ judgment

7
CRM CRM-M-46315 CRM CRM 46315 46315-2026 46315 2026 2026 2026

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 himself on any date before
the trial.
(iv) The petitioner shall not commit any offence while on bail.
(v) The petitioner shall deposit his passport, if any, with the
trial Court.
(vi) The petitioner shall give his cellphone number to the
Investigating Officer/SHO of concerned Police Station and
shall not change his 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 he 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 his
being enlarged on bail in the present FIR, on the basis of
his affidavit or otherwise, the State is mandated to move,
forthwith, for cancellation of his 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.







MAHAVIR SINGH
2026.11.03 17:37
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this order/ judgment

8
CRM CRM-M-46315 CRM CRM 46315 46315-2026 46315 2026 2026 2026

11. Since the main case has been decided, pending miscellaneous
application, if any, shall also stands disposed off.









(SUMEET GOEL SUMEET GOEL SUMEET GOEL) SUMEET GOEL
JUDGE JUDGE JUDGE JUDGE
November 03 November 03, 2026 November 03 November 03 , 2026 , 2026 , 2026
mahavir
Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No

Whether reportable: Yes/No







MAHAVIR SINGH
2026.11.03 17:37
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this order/ judgment