CRM-M-22602-2025                                                                    ::1::

(218) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT

CHANDIGARH

            CRM-M-22602-2025

Date of Decision: 28.08.2025

TARUN BATRA

... Petitioner

Versus

STATE OF PUNJAB

...Respondent

CORAM:  HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE  JASJIT SINGH BEDI

Present: Mr. Manvinder Sidhu, Advocate

for the petitioner.

Mr. Harkanwar Jeet Singh, Asstt. A.G., Punjab.

****

JASJIT SINGH BEDI, J. 

The prayer in this third petition under Section 483 BNSS, 2023 is

for  the grant of regular bail in case bearing FIR No.51 dated 18.05.2021

registered under Sections 8, 21, 22, 27-A, 29 of NDPS Act and Sections 420,

120-B, 468, 471 IPC at Police Station Mattewal, District Amritsar Rural.

2. The present FIR came to be registered at the instance of PHG

Lovepreet Singh and the same reads as under:-

"

Head Munshi, Police Station Mattewal. Today I/ASI along with

S.I. Kewal Singh 1397, ASI Harjinder Singh 1356, ASI Lakha

Singh 1361, PHG Lovepreet Singh 3069 on a Government vehicle

Number PB.02.BS.9394, whose Driver is CT. Desbir Singh 1853,

taking along the Laptop Printer, were present at BhoyeAdda

regarding patrolling and barricading, when ASI Rashminder Singh

Number 30/ASR.R, Incharge: Chowki, Tahli Sahib informed

myself S.I./S.H.O. over phone that today I along with LR/ASI

Rajwant Singh 1327 Amritsar Rural, ASI Avtar Singh 912, ASI

Sawinder Singh on a private vehicle (Card) were going from Tahli

CRM-M-22602-2025                                                                    ::2::

Sahib to Amritsar Side for some Government work, when the

Police Party reached Fatehgarh Churian Road, BalKalan, then

special Informer informed me A.S.I. that Sameer Kumar son of

Akshay Kumar, resident of Street No. 1, Ward Number 16, Majitha

Road, Amritsar and Gurmukh Singh son of Joga Singh, resident of

Mallu Nangal, Police Station: Rajasansi, In a vehicle ALTO K.10

bearing number PB02.CX.9948, White coloured and Suraj Kumar

son of Akshay Kumar, resident of Street No. 1, Ward Number 16,

Majitha Road, Amritsar riding on a Yamah FZ Motorcycle,

bearing Number PB.02.CA.6160, by taking along the intoxicating

tablets, together are going from Amritsar to Fatehgarh Churian

side for supplying the same. The aforesaid information is true,

reliable and tangible, which comes in the purview of Section 22.

61. 85 N.D.P.S. Act, on which after preparing the 'Rukka/

Inscription, the same is being sent to the Police Station by hand

through PHG Lovepreet Singh 3069 for registration of a case.

After registering the case, the case number be Intimated. Control

Room be informed through Wireless. After Issuing the Special

Reports, the same be submitted to Illaqa Magistrate Sahib and

Officers. Myself S.I./S.H.O. along with the companion employees

am proceeding at the spot of for recovery. Sd/. Lovepreet Singh,

S.I., Station House Officer, Police Station: Mattewal, dated

18.05.2021, Today in the area of Bhoye Adda area at 04.15 p.m.”

3. After sending the aforesaid 'Ruqa' for the registration of an FIR,

S.I Lovepreet Singh conducted a Nakabandhi at the main road near the village

Bal Kalan, Amritsar and apprehended Sameer Kumar @ Pardhan, Gurmukh

Singh and Suraj Kumar while travelling on a Maruti Alto K-10 car PB02-CX-

9948 and Yamaha FZ motorcycle No. PB02-CA-6160 respectively with the

help of the Police party. During the search of the aforesaid Maruti Alto K-10

car PB02-CX-9948, a total of 49,500/- Tramadol Hydrochloride Tablets- IP

CRM-M-22602-2025                                                                    ::3::

Clocidol-100 SR i.e., 99 boxes containing 10 strips each having 50 tablets in

each strip having batch Nos. UFT-042 and UFT-043, were recovered from a

cardboard box kept at the rear seat of the car. During the personal search of

the co-accused Suraj Kumar, a total of 500/- Tramadol Hydrochloride Tablets-

IP Clocidol-100 SR i.e., 10 strips each having 50 tablets in each strip, were

recovered from him, which were concealed by him in a white cloth (parna)

wrapped around his waist. The aforesaid searches were conducted by S.I

Lovepreet Singh and recoveries were effected in the presence of the then

Deputy Superintendent of Police, Sub-division Majitha, Amritsar (Rural) as

per the choice of the aforesaid co-accused persons after issuing them Notices

under section 50 of the NDPS Act. The aforesaid accused could not produced

any   license,   document   or   authorization   relating   to  the   purchase   and

possession of the aforesaid recovered psychotropic tablets, which were taken

into Police possession in accordance with the prescribed procedures and the

aforesaid three co-accused were arrested by the investigating officer.

4.  During their custodial interrogation, Sameer Kumar, Gurmukh

Singh   and   Suraj   Kumar   suffered   separate   disclosure  statements   dated

18.05.2021  disclosing  therein  that  they  were   involved  in  illicit  sale  of

intoxicant  tablets   by   purchasing  the   same   from   the  co-   accused  Manu

Chauhan (actual name Rahul Chauhan @ Manu) and used to share profits

with Manu Chauhan. On the basis of the aforesaid disclosure statements,

Rahul Chauhan @ Manu was nominated as co-accused and section 29 NDPS

CRM-M-22602-2025                                                                    ::4::

Act was added in the case vide GD No. 24 dated 18.05.2021. He was also

arrested on 18.05.2021.

5.  During   his   further   custodial   interrogation,   Sameer   Kumar

suffered an another disclosure statement dated 22.05.2021, disclosing therein

that a friend of co-accused Rahul Chauhan @ Manu namely Manish Dua @

Prince, was also involved with them in the illicit procurement and sale of

intoxicant tablets, who was nominated as co-accused in case vide G.D No. 11

dated 22.05.2021 on the basis of the aforesaid disclosure statement.

6.  During the course of investigation, it was found that 50,000

psychotropic tablets recovered from Sameer Kumar, Gurmukh Singh and

Suraj Kumar were manufactured by Unique Formulations situated at Main

Road, Devi Nagar, Paonta Sahib, District Sirmaur, Himachal Pradesh.

7.  On 27.05.2021, the investigating officer along with Police party

accompanied by two Drugs Inspectors from Amritsar visited the premises of

the Unique Formulations, Paonta Sahib and obtained the required record

relating to the manufacturing and sale of 50,000 Psychotropic tablets of the

batch   Nos.   UFT-042   and   UFT-043,   recovered   from   co-accused   Sameer

Kumar, Gurmukh Singh and Suraj Kumar from its owner cum Manager

Munish Mohan in the presence of the circle Drug Inspector. During the

scrutiny of the aforesaid record, it was found that the aforesaid 50,000

psychotropic   tablets   having   batch   Nos.   UFT-042   and  UFT-043   were

manufactured in the aforesaid factory i.e., Unique Formulations, in the name

of P B Pharmaceuticals, Raj Tower, 3rd Floor, Hauzkhas, New Delhi-110016

CRM-M-22602-2025                                                                    ::5::

without any written order/authorization and thereafter, the same were sold to

M/s Mansi Medicos, Shop No.1, DDA Market, Ghandoli Complex, Mayur

Vihar, Phase-3, East Delhi owned by co-accused Prem Kumar Jha through co-

accused Ranu Bhargav. During the inspection of the aforesaid factory by the

Circle   Drug   Inspector,   Paonta   Sahib,   serious   irregularities   and   flagrant

violation of the rules were found. During the search of the premises of the

aforesaid Unique Formulations, Paonta Sahib, a total of 30 lakh 61 thousand

647  psychotropic tablets/capsules kept concealed in  the different rooms

without proper documentation/record were recovered by the investigating

officer, which were taken into Police possession vide recovery memo dated

27.05.2021 in the presence of two Drug Inspector from Amritsar i.e., Amarpal

Singh Malhi and Sukhdeep Singh, and Ms. Bhumika, Circle Drug Inspector,

Paonta Sahib and co- accused Munish Mohan was arrested in the case.

8.  The petitioner-Tarun Batra along with Chetan Parmar and Ranu

Bhargav were nominated as co-accused and sections 420, 468, 471 & 120-B

IPC R/w section 29 NDPS Act were added in the case vide G.D No. 13 dated

28.05.2021 on the basis of the disclosure statement dated 28.05.2021 suffered

by   co-accused   Munish   Mohan   during   his   custodial   interrogation,   who

disclosed therein that he along with the petitioner and co-accused Chetan

Parmar had established the factory with the name of Unique Formulations in

June 2020 for manufacturing of sanitizers and co-accused Chetan Parmar had

procured the drugs manufacturing license from the office of Drug Controller

by using his political links. The petitioner and co-accused Chetan Parmar had

CRM-M-22602-2025                                                                    ::6::

also financed the installation of the machinery in the aforesaid factory. He

further disclosed that the petitioner along with his friend Ahsish Sardana @

Vivek used to regularly visit the factory premises and he along with the

petitioner,   Chetan   Parmar   and   Ahsish   Sardana   @   Vivek   had   sent   a

consignment of 08 lakh Tramadol Hydrochloride tablets in two parts of 04

lakh tablets each on 01.05.2021 and 11.05.2021 including the recovered

Psychotropic tablets i.e., Tramadol Hydrochloride Tablets-IP Clocidol-100 SR

having batch Nos. UFT-042 and UFT-043, to M/s Mansi Medicos, Shop No.1,

DDA Market, Ghandoli Complex, Mayur Vihar, Phase-3, East Delhi on the

basis of the order given by co-accused Ranu Bhargav and the builty of the

aforesaid   consignment   was   booked   in   the   name   of   Prem   Kumar   Jha,

Proprietor of M/s Mansi Medicos. He further disclosed that Ranu Bhargav

had transferred Rs. 4 lakh for the purchase of the aforesaid consignments in

the account No. 11391132 000348 of Punjab National Bank, Branch Paonta

Sahib of Unique Formulations, which were withdrawn by him and thereafter,

handed over to the petitioner and co-accused Chetan Parmar. He further

disclosed that land and building of the factory was owned by co- accused

Chetan Parmar and a bogus rent agreement was prepared in the name of

Unique Formulations and he was paid Rs. 40,000/- per month as salary being

a Manager of the factory.

9.  During the course of the investigation, it has been found that the

petitioner and co-accused Chetan Parmer were the actual owners of Unique

Formulations, who had employed co-accused Manish Mohan as a manager on

CRM-M-22602-2025                                                                    ::7::

the salary of Rs. 40,000/- per month and the drugs manufacturing license was

procured by co-accused Chetan Parmer in the name of Manish Mohan. The

co-accused Ranu Bhargav was working as agent for them, who used to

procure   orders   for   the   supply   of   Tramadol   Hydrochloride   Tablets-IP

manufactured at the factory of Unique Formulations by Manish Mohan and

the consignment of the manufactured drugs were sent in the name of fake

firms   without   any   documentation/or   fake   documentation.   During   the

investigation, it has been found that petitioner and co-accused Chetan Parmer

had provided the funds/money for the establishing and operating the factory

under the name of Unique Formulations. As per the record found during the

course of investigation, the petitioner had transferred Rs. 20,79,356/- in the

bank account of the Unique Formulations and an another amount of Rs.

3,28,907/- was transferred by him from the bank account of Apple Field

International   Company   in   the   bank   account   of   Unique  Formulations.

Whereas, co-accused Chetan Parmar had transferred Rs. 23,70,000/- in the

bank account of Unique Formulations and his wife Vandana Parmar had

transferred Rs. 2,40,000/- from her bank account in the bank account of the

Unique Formulations. The Psychotropic tablets manufactured at the factory of

Unique Formulations were marketed in the name of PB Pharmaceuticals, Raj

Tower, 3

rd

 Floor, Hauzkhas, New Delhi-110016 but no documentary record in

that respect was maintained by the petitioner and co-accused Manish Mohan,

Chetan Parmer. The manufactured Psychotropic tablets/capsules were further

distributed/ by co-accused Ranu Bhargav being their marketing/sales agent by

CRM-M-22602-2025                                                                    ::8::

procuring orders from prospective buyers.

10.  The petitioner was arrested on 24.01.2024 from Jagadari, District

Yamuna Nagar during the course of investigation.

11.  Section 25 NDPS has been added in the case vide G.D No. 17

dated 19.07.2024.

12. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner

had been falsely implicated in the present case. He contends that the name of

the petitioner figured in the disclosure statement of his co-accused. Pursuant

to his arrest, no recovery whatsoever had been effected. Reliance is placed on

the judgments in the cases of Tofan Singh Versus State of Tamil Nadu, 2020

AIR (Supreme Court) 5592, Rakesh Kumar Singla Versus Union of India,

2021(1) RCR (Criminal) 704, Surinder Kumar Khanna Versus Intelligence

Officer Directorate of Revenue Intelligence, 2018(3) RCR (Criminal) 954,

State by (NCB) Bengaluru Versus Pallulabid Ahmad Arimutta & Anr.

2022(1) RCR (Criminal) 762, Sanjeev Chandra Agarwal & Anr. Versus

Union of India 2021(4) RCR (Criminal) 590, Vijay Singh Versus The State

of   Haryana,   bearing   Special   Leave   to  Appeal   (Crl.)  No.(s).1266/2023

decided on 17.05.2023, State of Haryana versus Samarth Kumar 2022 (3)

RCR (Criminal) 991 and Vikrant Singh Versus State of Punjab, CRM-M-

39657-2020.”, wherein it has been held that the accused can be granted the

concession of regular bail where he has been named in the disclosure

statement of his co-accused and there is no other corroborative evidence

against the accused. As the petitioner is in custody since 24.01.2024 but none

CRM-M-22602-2025                                                                    ::9::

of the 80 prosecution witnesses have been examined so far, the trial of the

present case is not likely to be concluded anytime soon and therefore, he was

entitled to the concession of bail even though there were two other cases

bearing FIR No.54 dated 26.04.2019 U/s 21, 18(c) NDPS Act, P.S. Majra,

District Sirmour, HP and FIR No.66 dated 30.05.2021 U/s 8 & 22 of NDPS

Act R/w Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 & 120-B IPC P.S. Paonta Sahib, District

Sirmour pending against him.

13.  The learned counsel for the State contends that in view of the

serious allegations levelled against the petitioner, he was not entitled to the

grant of bail.  He was an accused in two other cases bearing FIR No.54 dated

26.04.2019 U/s 21, 18(c) NDPS Act, P.S. Majra, District Sirmour, HP and FIR

No.66 dated 30.05.2021 U/s 8 & 22 of NDPS Act R/w Sections 420, 467,

468, 471 & 120-B IPC P.S. Paonta Sahib, District Sirmour. Even otherwise,

there were no change in circumstances warranting grant of bail when the

second bail application of the petitioner came to be withdrawn on 01.07.2024.

He, however, concedes that the petitioner had been named in the disclosure

statement, is in custody since 24.01.2024 but none of the 80 prosecution

witnesses have been examined so far.

14. I have heard the learned counsel for both the parties at length.

15. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of  State of Haryana

Versus Samarth Kumar 2022 (3) RCR (Criminal) 991, held as under:-

“4. The High Court decided to grant pre.arrest bail to the

respondents on the only ground that no recovery was effected

from the respondents and that they had been implicated only

CRM-M-22602-2025                                                                    ::10::

on the basis of the disclosure statement of the main accused

Dinesh Kumar. Therefore, reliance was placed by the High

Court in the majority judgment of this Court in   Tofan Singh

v. State of Tamil Nadu reported in (2021) 4 SCC 1.

5. But, it is contended by the learned Additional Advocate

General appearing on behalf of the State of Haryana that on

the basis of the anticipatory bail granted to the respondents,

the Special Court was constrained to grant regular bail even

to the main accused.Dinesh Kumar and he jumped bail.

Fortunately, the main accused.Dinesh Kumar has again been

apprehended. According to the learned Additional Advocate

General, the respondent in the second of these appeals is

also a habitual offender.

6. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent in

the first of these Appeals contends that the State is guilty of

suppression of the vital fact that the respondent was granted

regular bail after the charge.sheet was filed and that

therefore, nothing survives in the appeal. But,we do not

agree.

7. The order of the Special Court granting regular bail to the

respondents shows that the said order was passed in

pursuance of the anticipatory bail granted by the High

Court. Therefore, the same cannot be a ground to hold that

the present appeals have become infructuous.

8. In cases of this nature, the respondents may be able to take

advantage of the decision in   Tofan Singh v. State of Tamil

Nadu (supra), perhaps at the time of arguing the regular bail

application or at the time of final hearing after conclusion of

the trial.

9. To grant anticipatory bail in a case of this nature is not

really warranted. Therefore, we are of the view that the High

CRM-M-22602-2025                                                                    ::11::

Court fell into an error in granting anticipatory bail to the

respondents.

10. In view of the above, the appeals are allowed. The

impugned orders are set.aside. As a consequence, the

Appellant.State is entitled to take steps, in accordance with

law.

[emphasis supplied]

16. In 

Vijay Singh Versus The State of Haryana, bearing Special

Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No.(s).1266/2023 decided on 17.05.2023, it was held

as under:-

“T

he petitioner is alleged to have committed offences under

Sections 15 and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic

Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter called the NDPS Act". His

application for anticipatory bail was rejected by the High

Court. The allegations in the FIR are that 1.7 Kg of Poppy

Straw (Doda Post) was recovered from the co.accused. The

petitioner concededly was not present at the spot but was

named by the co.accused. That apart there is no other

material to implicate the petitioner. The prosecution urges that

another case with allegations of commission of offence under

the NDPS Act are pending against the petitioner. It is not

denied that in those proceedings he was granted bail.

Having regard to these circumstances, the petitioner

is directed to the enlarged on anticipatory bail, subject to such

terms and conditions as the trial Court may impose.

The petition is allowed.

All pending applications are disposed of.”

(emphasis supplied)

17.   This Court in the case of Vikrant Singh Versus State of Punjab,

CRM-M-39657-2020, held as under:-

CRM-M-22602-2025                                                                    ::12::

“It is not in dispute that the petitioners have not been named

in the FIR. No recovery has been effected from the petitioners

and the alleged recovery has been effected from two co.

accused Rakesh Sharma and Ravdeep Singh alias Sheru. The

petitioners are sought to be implicated solely on the basis of

the disclosure statement made by the co.accused Rakesh

Sharma and Ravdeep Singh @ Sheru and even after the

petitioners were arrayed as accused in pursuance of the

disclosure statements, no recovery had been made from the

petitioners.

The petitioners have been in custody since 06.11.2020

(Vikrant Singh), 05.12.2020 (Subash Chander) and

23.04.2021 (Davinder Singh) and challan in the present case

has already been presented and there are 32 witnesses, out of

whom only one has been examined and thus, the trial is likely

to take time on account of Covid.19 Pandemic. The

petitioners are not involved in any other case. With respect to

the call details, suffice to say that no dates on which the said

calls had been allegedly made by the coaccused, Rakesh

Sharma and Ravdeep Singh alias Sheru to the petitioners or

vice.versa have been mentioned in the affidavit or in the

report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. Moreover, even the

transcript of the said conversations are not a part of the

record under Section 173 Cr.P.C. A Division Bench of this

Court in Narcotics Control Bureau's case (supra), was

pleased to observe as under:.

Still further, no conversation detail between accused

Ramesh Kumar Patil and accused Sandeep has been

produced by the prosecution. Mere call details is not

sufficient to prove that Sandeep accused was also

involved in the business of narcotic drugs or he had any

connected with Ramesh Kumar Patil.

CRM-M-22602-2025                                                                    ::13::

In view of the above, no case is made out for grant of

leave to appeal against the acquittal of Sandeep

accused.”

In judgment of the Gujarat High Court in Yash Jayeshbhai

Champaklal Shah's case (supra), it has been observed as

under:.

“Having heard learned advocates for the appearing

parties, it emerges on record that the applicant is not

found in possession of any contraband article. Over and

above that, the call data records may reveal that in an

around the time of incident, he was in contact with the

co.accused who were found in possession of contraband.

Since there is no recording of conversation in between

the accused, mere contacts with the co.accused who

were found in possession cannot be treated to be a

corroborative material in absence of substantive

material found against the accused.”

A perusal of the above judgment would show that

without the transcript of the conversations exchanged

between the co.accused, mere call details would not be

considered to be corroborative material in absence of

substantive material found against the accused. In the

present case, there is no other material against the

petitioners.

Keeping in view the above.said facts and circumstances, as

well as law laid down in the judgments noticed hereinabove,

the present petitions are allowed and the petitioners are

ordered to be released on bail on their furnishing bail/surety

bonds to the satisfaction of the concerned trial Court/Duty

Magistrate and subject to their not being required in any

other case.

(emphasis supplied)

CRM-M-22602-2025                                                                    ::14::

18. This Court in the case of  Ranjit Singh Versus State of Punjab,

CRM-M-25526-2023, decided on 17.07.2023, held as under:-

“8. Coming back to the facts of the present case, it is pertinent

to note here that other than the instant FIR in which the

petitioner has been nominated as an accused on the basis of

the disclosure statement of the arrested accused, the petitioner

is also an accused in two other cases under the NDPS Act. In

addition, he had been an accused in three other cases, though

he has been acquitted in the said cases. It is highly unlikely

that the petitioner would have been implicated in multiple FIRs

at the whims and fancies of the Investigating Agency.

9. When there are multiple FIRs against a person over a

significant period of time (in this case 18 years), then even

though he may have been acquitted in some of those cases, the

twin conditions as envisaged under Section 37 of the NDPS Act

that he has not committed an offence and was not likely to

commit an offence cannot be satisfied.

10. Keeping in view the conduct of the petitioner and his

criminal antecedents, his custodial interrogation would

certainly be necessary to effect necessary recoveries and to

take the investigation to its logical conclusion.

11. In view of the above, I find no merit in the present petition.

Therefore, the same stands dismissed.

(emphasized supplied)

19. This Court in  Soni Singh @ Chamkaur Sahib, CRM-M-31645-

2022, decided on 20.10.2022, held as under:-

“The Counsel for the petitioner contends that the

petitioner is not named in the FIR nor in the secret

information. He has been named only in the disclosure

statement of his co.accused which is inadmissible in

CRM-M-22602-2025                                                                    ::15::

evidence and even otherwise since the recovery effected from

him of 3 Kgs of Poppy Husk is of non commercial quantity,

therefore the rigors of Section 37 of NDPS Act did not apply

to the petitioner. Since the petitioner was in custody since

26.05.2022 and the trial was not likely to be concluded in the

near future, he deserved the concession of bail.

The Counsel for the State on the other hand contends

that the petitioner is a trafficker along with his co.accused.

As per the disclosure statement 200 Kgs of Poppy Husk was

to be supplied to the petitioner. Further he is involved in two

other cases under the NDPS Act as also one case under the

Excise Act and, therefore, did not deserve the concession of

bail in view of his antecedents.

I have heard counsel for both the sides at length.

Admittedly, the petitioner in the present case is named

in the disclosure statement of the arrested accused.

Subsequently thereto 3Kgs of Poppy Husk was recovered at

his instance which is a non commercial quantity. It may be

relevant to mention here that limitations to the grant of bail

under Section 37 of the NDPS Act are in addition to those

prescribed under Cr.PC or any other law inforce on the grant

of bail as has been set out by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in

Satpal Singh Vs. State of Punjab 2018(5) RCR (Criminal)

152. In the present case, the petitioner is involved in two

other cases under the NDPS Act. Thus, as he is a habitual

offender, he is not entitled to the grant of bail even under

Section 439 Cr.PC keeping in view his antecedents. Even

otherwise, assuming that the rigors of Section 37 of the

NDPS Act did not apply to the petitioner, that by itself would

not ipso facto lead to the grant of bail to the petitioner.

In view of the above discussion, I find no merit in the

present petition and the same is therefore dismissed.

CRM-M-22602-2025                                                                    ::16::

(emphasis supplied)

20. In 

Samarth Kumar

 (supra) the Hon'ble Supreme Court had clearly

held that an accused who had been named in the disclosure statement of a co-

accused was not entitled to the grant of anticipatory bail but could be granted

regular bail. However, in Vijay Singh (supra) a somewhat contrary view was

taken and the accused therein was granted the concession of anticipatory bail

even though he had been an accused in another case under the NDPS Act in

which he was on bail. In Vikrant Singh (supra) this Court held that where an

accused had been named in the disclosure statement of his co-accused and there

were CDRs/WhatsApp calls/chats between the arrested accused and the person

named in a disclosure statement then in the absence of the contents of the

conversation/chats bail could not be denied to the said accused. In Ranjit Singh

(supra) and Soni Singh @ Chamkaur Sahib (supra) it has been held by this

Court that where there were multiple FIRs against an accused over a period of

time then, even though he had been named in a disclosure statement, he was not

entitled to the concession of bail. 

21. Coming back to the facts and circumstances of the present case,

other than the instant FIR in which the petitioner has been nominated as an

accused on the basis of the disclosure statement of his co-accused, the petitioner

is also an accused in two other cases under the NDPS Act. It is highly unlikely

that the petitioner would have been implicated in multiple FIRs at the whims and

fancies of the investigating agency. Further, the petitioner and one Chetan

Parmar are the actual owner of 

Unique Formulations in who’s premises the

contraband was manufactured and thereafter, dispatched to different entities

CRM-M-22602-2025                                                                    ::17::

for sale without any proper documentation but on fake documents. The

recovery of 3,62,000 tablets (approx.) came to be effected from the factory

premises where they were kept concealed in different rooms without proper

documentation. 

22. Even otherwise, when there are multiple FIRs against an accused

over a significant period of time, then the twin conditions as envisaged under

Section 37 of the NDPS Act that he has not committed an offence and is not

likely to commit an offence cannot be satisfied. Further, the limitation to the

grant of bail under Section 37 of the NDPS Act are in addition to those

prescribed under the Cr.P.C. or any other law in force on the grant of bail.

Thus, a habitual offender is not entitled to the grant of bail even under the

provisions of the Cr.P.C. keeping in view his criminal antecedents even

though, his co-accused who are similarly situated may have been granted the

said concession.

23. Further the first bail application of the petitioner was withdrawn

on 15.02.2023. The second bail application of the petitioner withdrawn on

01.07.2024. There are no changed circumstances warranting grant of bail at

this stage.

24. In view of the above, I find no merit in the present petition.

Therefore, the same stands dismissed.

(JASJIT SINGH BEDI)

JUDGE

28.08.2025

JITESH Whether speaking/reasoned:-  Yes/No

Whether reportable:-          Yes/No