CRM-M/32498/2026 of LADU LAL @ LADU RAM Vs STATE OF HARYANA on 13 August 2026



     
    ! 
 



 



"#"$%"& '( ) ) 

$'*'+"& '() ) 

,-.&"& '() ) 

/.&* /.-

/.&* .1 ))"2323'"$ 4"$#*# 52.2"

.$6.'.

))"#,'&"'2
( 7/

5
 5/ 5 / $"#"'2(

 

  

 



 5/ 5 /

)

  

    !"#$%$& 

'('))$)(   '*+,)*+# -   -.



 

 ) ! 

 

 '('))$)( 

 !



 /     /  0

,

 1"2 3 /  
4

/ -   0

,

 1"2 -

 4

 

)56' /
- 

/

 -     4    

   

 



   

  




/  3 313 "/ REEMA SAINI



  

   

   /

  



 / 

  - 

  

 -

 

-

 





  -/ 

  

 

 



   / +  -



- / -  - 2    '7$')$)5          %

    

 

    

  8/ -  

 

 !"   

      -

/  //   9       -      /  

   / 0

,

 1 "2 ! -

   6*#  -

   



  -   /

 

     

 /

 /  -       !"#%$)  '''))$)(   '*:0; #  - ( !<









 8   / , 



-

 =   /    -> 



 









      



 









 

 


 
 

!"# $ 


%



  




 


 &
 

'



$( 



%
   



 %  



 




 
% 

 



 




 


 &
 

'



$(   
 

 )

 

 


 

  



 

!"# $   

 



 






 


 *+
 

!"# $  
 









 %  



  

 %
 






 

!"# $ , REEMA SAINI



  

.

/  --    

 

 !
"
#
$%



&'
'((

'
$'
)

 * .

2  

8   / , 
! *$+
$ '
,'



-
 
'

 ' *.+

/00

-

    #,

  

, 



  

   

    )$:;)')))*+)*0)& )7 #    > ‘9. Having gone through the records alongwith the tabulated statement of the respondents submitted on behalf of the petitioner- NCB and on carefully perusing the impugned orders passed in each case, it emerges that except for the voluntary statements of A-1 and A-2 in the first case and that of the respondents themselves recorded under Section 67 of the NDPS Act, it appears, prima facie, that no substantial material was available with the prosecution at the time of arrest to connect the respondents with the allegations levelled against them of indulging in drug trafficking. It has not been denied by the prosecution that except for the respondent in SLP (Crl.) No. 1569/2021, none of the other respondents were found to be in possession of commercial quantities of psychotropic substances, as contemplated under the NDPS Act.

10. It has been held in clear terms in Tofan Singh Vs. State of Tamil Nadu 6, that a confessional statement recorded under Section 67 of the NDPS Act will remain inadmissible in the trial of an offence under the NDPS Act. In the teeth of the aforesaid decision, the arrests made by the petitioner-NCB, on the basis of the confession/voluntary statements of the respondents or the co- accused under Section 67 of the NDPS Act, cannot form the basis for overturning the impugned orders releasing them on bail. The CDR details of some of the accused or the allegations of tampering REEMA SAINI



   of evidence on the part of one of the respondents is an aspect that will be examined at the stage of trial. For the aforesaid reason, this Court is not inclined to interfere in the orders dated 16 thSeptember, 2019, 14th January, 2020, 16th January, 2020, 19th December, 2019 and 20th January, 2020 passed in SLP (Crl.) No@ Diary No. 22702/2020, SLP (Crl.) No. 1454/2021, SLP (Crl.) No. 1465/2021, SLP (Crl.) No. 1773-74/2021 and SLP (Crl.) No. 2080/2021 respectively. The impugned orders are, accordingly, upheld and the Special Leave Petitions filed by the petitioner-NCB seeking cancellation of bail granted to the respective respondents, are dismissed as meritless.’ &   2   - '7$')$)5 

 5/

 '7 .

/   

 

/

   / +    -   

  -/ /

/,       







            

    /   

     -



  



 -        /   . ,        

/ !

   / 

   -

 //  /   

 

   2 

  

   9               

      , = 
   

     /             

5/ 5 /










 ) ) 

/ ?



 = 

> @  ?



  > # REEMA SAINI