Sagar Ansari vs State Of Haryana

MANISHA BATRA, J. (Oral)

The instant one is the 4^th petition filed by the petitioner under Section 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short “BNSS”) seeking grant of regular bail in case arising out of FIR No.306 dated 28.03.2024 registered under Sections 20(b) and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act (for short “NDPS Act”) and Sections 186 and 427 of IPC at Police Station Palla, District Faridabad. His previous petitions were dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 16.01.2026, 29.04.2026 and 13.07.2026 respectively. He had also sought liberty in the second and third bail petitions to file fresh one with better particulars.

As per the allegations, on 28th March, 2024, a secret information was received by the police officials to the effect that accused Sunita Bai and Anil Sisodiya were engaged in the business of selling Ganja and on that very day also they were present outside the house of Sunita Bai and were trying to sell Ganja to someone. Believing the secret information to be true, a raiding party was formed which rushed to the spot and found the above-named persons present there. However, accused Sunita Bai managed to flee, whereas accused Anil Sisodiya was apprehended. A plastic sack was found in his hand. On checking the same, 11 kgs and 790 grams (inclusive of the weight of sack) of ganja was recovered from his conscious possession which was taken into custody. The accused Anil Sisodiya was formally arrested. Since the family members of accused Anil Sisodiya, while projecting themselves as reporters, had attempted to forcibly enter inside the house, tried to rescue him, had a scuffle and had caused obstruction in performance of duties by the police officials, offences under Sections 186 and 427 of IPC were added. Accused Shalini, Ravina and Rajni were also nominated as accused.

As per the further allegations, the accused Anil Sisodiya suffered disclosure statement to the effect that he had purchased the recovered contraband from the present petitioner, who was nominated as accused and was arrested on 20th September 2025. Offence under Section 29 of NDPS Act was added. Investigation now stands concluded.

It is argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that he has been falsely implicated on the basis of disclosure statement of the co-accused which cannot be considered to be legally admissible in evidence. The rigors of Section 37 of NDPS Act are not attracted in this case as the quantity of recovered contraband falls under non-commercial quantity. The co-accused Anil and Sunita Bai have already been extended benefit of bail. No recovery has been effected from him. Each day spent by him in custody has furnished a fresh reason to him to seek concession of bail. His continued detention would not serve any fruitful purpose. His previous bail petitions were dismissed as withdrawn and was not decided on merits. The trial will take considerable time to conclude as only 6 out of 22 prosecution witnesses have been examined. It is, therefore, argued that the petition deserves to be allowed.

Per contra, learned State counsel has argued that the present petition being a successive one is not maintainable. His antecedents are not clean as he is involved in 02 more cases of similar nature. Taking into consideration the nature and gravity of the allegations as levelled against the petitioner, he does not deserve to be extended benefit of bail. It is, therefore, argued that the petition does not deserve to be allowed.

This Court has heard the rival submissions made by learned counsel for the parties.

So far as the question of maintainability of this petition being successive one is concerned, it may be mentioned that, an accused has a right to move successive bail application for grant of bail and it is the duty of the Court, while entertaining such a subsequent bail application, to consider that any fresh ground which persuade it to take a view different from the one taken in the earlier application is made out or not. It is also required to be noted that every day spent by an accused in custody provides a new cause of action for filing a bail application under certain circumstances. He cannot be kept in custody for indefinite period and the bail application can be considered even if it is filed repeatedly. The petitioner is alleged to be the supplier of contraband to the accused Anil Sisodiya and Sunita Bai. 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. Reliance can also be placed upon the observations made by this Court in Anshul Sardana Vs. State of Punjab, 2005:PHHC:004198, wherein it was observed that a confession made by a co-accused under Section 67 of the NDPS Act is inherently a very weak piece of evidence and such statement cannot form the sole basis for conviction of an individual and must be scrutinized with utmost caution in conjunction with other substantive evidence. The final evidentiary value and admissibility of the disclosure statement made by a co-accused falls within the domain of the trial Court and is to be adjudicated during the course of trial in accordance with established principles of law, however, at this stage, it cannot be ignored that no recovery has been effected from the petitioner. He is in custody since 20.09.2025. There is nothing on record, at this stage, to connect the petitioner either with the subject crime or to show that he was connected with the co-accused in any manner at the relevant time. Investigation has been completed and challan has been filed. Conclusion of trial would take considerable time. On account of involvement in other cases, he cannot be denied benefit of bail in this case. The co-accused, Anil Sidoiya and Sunita Bai, were also extended benefit of regular bail by this Court. Keeping in view the aforesaid facts, circumstances, and on the ground of parity, this Court is of the considered opinion that no useful purpose would be served by keeping the petitioner in custody anymore. Accordingly, the present petition is allowed. The petitioner is ordered to be released on regular bail, subject to his furnishing personal as well as surety bonds to the satisfaction of the trial Court/Duty Magistrate concerned.

In the eventuality of breach of any of the aforementioned conditions, the respondent-State shall be at liberty to move an application seeking cancellation of the bail.

It is made clear that any observation made herein above is only for the purpose of deciding the present petition and the same shall have no bearing on the merits of the case.

Since the main petition has been disposed of, pending application, if any, is rendered infructuous.