HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-5274-2026 Vishal alias Hathi v. State of Haryana”. Co & Anr.

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY VASHISTH Present: Mr. R.S. Bains, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Mohan Singh Chauhan, Advocate for the petitioner(s). Mr. Pawan Kumar Garg, DAG, Haryana. **** SANJAY VASHISTH , J. (Oral)

#1. By way of this common order both the aforementioned petitions are being disposed of.

#2. Present petitions have been filed under Section 483 of the BNSS seeking the concession of regular bail in FIR No. 409 dated

26.07.2023, under Sections 21/27-A/29-61-85 of NDPS Act ( Section 21(c) of NDPS Act was added later on), registered at Police Station Ambala Cantt, District Ambala, Haryana.

#3. Brief facts of the case are that on 25.07.2023, when PSI Rohit Kumar along with police official was present at Gudgudia Nala Pulia Jagadhri Road, Ambala Cantt., a secret information was received to CRM-M-5274-2026 and CRM-M-5451-2026 2 the effect that Dishant Kumar brings Heroin from Delhi in his car bearing registration No. HR-85B-3044 on the asking of accused Satyam, Varis, Lakhan Kumar son of Vinod Kumar and Vicky son of Ashok Kumar and he would be bringing heavy quantity of Heroin and in case Nakabandi is laid, he can be apprehended. Upon secret information, Nakabandi was done and co-accused-Dishant Kumar was apprehended along with car bearing registration No.HR-85B-3044. From his possession commercial quantity of Heroin/Smack weighing 1 Kg 13 grams was recovered. On the basis of aforesaid allegations, FIR(supra) was registered.

#4. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner(s) submits that co- accused, namely, Dishant Kumar, from whose possession the alleged contraband was recovered, has been granted the concession of regular bail by this Court vide order dated 29.04.2025 passed in CRM-M-12901- 2025, titled as “Dishant Kumar Vs. State of Haryana”. Co-accused Varis and Satyam Sood have also been granted the concession of regular bail by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide a joint order dated

23.07.2025 passed in CRM-M-23491-2025 and CRM-M-16033-2025. He further submits that petitioner(s) are in custody since

12.08.2025 (petitioner-Vishal alias Hathi) and 25.08.2025 (petitioner- Rohan). Admittedly, no contraband has been recovered from the conscious possession of the petitioner(s). There is no evidence, either forensic or otherwise, to connect the petitioner(s) with the alleged contraband recovered from co-accused, except the disclosure statement, which has no evidentiary value in the eyes of law. CRM-M-5274-2026 and CRM-M-5451-2026 3 It is further submitted that it is settled law that statements recorded by the police under Section 67 of the NDPS Act are hit by Sections 25 and 26 of the Indian Evidence Act. He further submits that, till date, out of the 46 prosecution witnesses, only 01 witness has been examined, and the delay in the conclusion of the trial cannot be attributed to the petitioner(s) in any manner.

#5. Per contra, learned State counsel opposes the grant of regular bail to the petitioner(s) on the ground that there is sufficient material on record to prove the complicity of the petitioners and keeping in view the antecedents of their criminal behaviour, they are not entitled to any relief. Further, petitioners are involved in other criminal cases also. However, he could not controvert the fact that in most of the cases, the petitioners are on bail.

#6. A two Judge Bench of Hon’ble Supreme Court in ‘Satender Kumar Antil v. CBI’ (2022) 10 SCC 51, with respect to prevailing conditions of undertrial prisoner in India has observed: “6. Jails in India are flooded with undertrial prisoners. The statistics placed before us would indicate that more than 2/3rd of the inmates of the prisons constitute undertrial prisoners. Of this category of prisoners, majority may not even be required to be arrested despite registration of a cognizable offence, being charged with offences punishable for seven years or less. They are not only poor and illiterate but also would include women. Thus, there is a culture of offence being inherited by many of them. As observed by this Court, it certainly exhibits the mindset, a vestige of colonial India, on the part of the investigating agency, notwithstanding the fact arrest is a draconian measure resulting in curtailment of liberty, and thus to be used CRM-M-5274-2026 and CRM-M-5451-2026 4 sparingly. In a democracy, there can never be an impression that it is a police State as both are conceptually opposite to each other.” After perusing the record of the case with the assistance of

#7. learned State counsel, it transpires that the petitioners, namely, Vishal @ Hathi and Rohan, are behind the bars since 12.08.2025 and 25.08.2025, respectively. Investigation is complete. The final report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. was presented before the concerned Court and trial of the case has not made much progress as only 01 out of 46 prosecution witnesses has been examined so far. The culpability, if any, would be determined at the time of trial. No useful purpose shall be served by further detention of the accused/petitioner(s).

#8. Further, the culpability, if any, would be determined at the time of trial and as such, no useful purpose will be served by further detention of the petitioner(s)-accused. Keeping the petitioner(s) in further detention without the prospect of the trial being concluded in the near future, would be violative of his rights under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. A two Judge bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Mohd. Muslim @ Hussain vs. State (NCT of Delhi) 2023 AIR SC 1648, has held that the concept of fairness enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution of India would trump the bar on granting bail in cases involving commercial quantity of contraband, as stipulated by Section 37 of the NDPS Act. Speaking through Justice S. Ravindra Bhat, has opined as follows: CRM-M-5274-2026 and CRM-M-5451-2026 5 “20. The standard to be considered therefore, is one, where the court would look at the material in a broad manner, and reasonably see whether the accused’s guilt may be proved. The judgments of this court have, therefore, emphasized that the satisfaction which courts are expected to record, i.e., that the accused may not be guilty, is only prima facie, based on a reasonable reading, which does not call for meticulous examination of the materials collected during investigation (as held in Union of India v. Rattan Malik). Grant of bail on ground of undue delay in trial, cannot be said to be fettered by Section 37 of the Act, given the imperative of Section 436A which is applicable to offences under the NDPS Act too (ref. Satender Kumar Antil supra). Having regard to these factors the court is of the opinion that in the facts of this case, the appellant deserves to be enlarged on bail.

#21. Before parting, it would be important to reflect that laws which impose stringent conditions for grant of bail, may be necessary in public interest; yet, if trials are not concluded in time, the injustice wrecked on the individual is immeasurable. Jails are overcrowded and their living conditions, more often than not, appalling.” (emphasis added)

#9. Keeping in view the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in ‘Prabhakar Tewari Vs. State of U.P. and another’ 2020 (1) R.C.R. (Criminal 831) and 'Maulana Mohd. Amir Rashadi Vs. State of U.P. and Another', 2012 (2) SCC 382, the involvement of the petitioner(s) in other cases would not be a ground to refuse grant of concession of regular bail. CRM-M-5274-2026 and CRM-M-5451-2026 6

#10. In view the above, the present petitions are allowed. Thus, without commenting upon the merits of the case lest it may prejudice the outcome of the trial, the petitioners, namely, Vishal @ Hathi and Rohan, are ordered to be released on regular bail during trial on their furnishing bail bonds/surety bonds to the satisfaction of Illaqa Magistrate/Trial Court.

#11. Any observation made hereinabove shall not be construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case. Learned trial Court shall proceed to decide the case independently, on the basis of evidence available on record, in accordance with law and as expeditiously as possible.

#12. case.

#13. A photo copy of this order be placed on the file of connected Petition stands disposed of. (SANJAY VASHISTH) JUDGE

13.07.2026 Rashmi Whether speaking/reasoned: Whether Reportable: Yes/No Yes/No