Mr. Vikram Jeet Singh, Advocate and Ms. Heena Parveen, Advocate for & Anr. v. Union of India & Anr.

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY VASHISTH Present: Mr. S.K. Sinha, Advocate, Mr. Vikram Jeet Singh, Advocate and Ms. Heena Parveen, Advocate for the petitioner (in CRM-M-16474-2026). Mr. Ashok K. Sharma (Bhana), Advocate, for the petitioner (in CRM-M-29559-2026). Mr. Parminder Singh Sekhon, Senior Advocate with Mr. Rajdeep Singh Gill, Advocate for the petitioner (in CRM-M-30498-2026). Ms. Malvika Singh, DAG, Haryana. **** SANJAY VASHISTH, J. (ORAL)

By way of this common order, all the above-mentioned petitions are being decided together as they arise out of the same FIR and common allegations.

Petitioner – Ansh Jain (in CRM-M-16474-2026) has filed instant second bail petition under Section 483 of BNSS, 2023 (earlier Section 439 Cr.P.C.), for grant of regular bail, during the pendency of trial, who has been booked in a criminal case arising out of FIR No. 0118, dated 12.08.2025 registered under Section 22-C of NDPS Act, 1985 at Police Station Moohana, District Sonipat, Haryana.

Petitioner – Sourabh (in CRM-M-29559-2026) has filed instant first bail petition under Section 483 of BNSS, 2023 (earlier Section 439 Cr.P.C.), for grant of regular bail, during the pendency of trial, who has been booked in a criminal case arising out of FIR No. 0118, dated 12.08.2025 registered under Section 22-C of NDPS Act, 1985 at Police Station Moohana, District Sonipat, Haryana.

Petitioner – Tarun (in CRM-M-30498-2026) has filed instant first bail petition under Section 483 of BNSS, 2023 (earlier Section 439 Cr.P.C.), for grant of regular bail, during the pendency of trial, who has been booked in a criminal case arising out of FIR No. 0118, dated 12.08.2025 registered under Sections 22-C and 29 of NDPS Act, 1985 at Police Station Moohana, District Sonipat, Haryana.

While members of the police team were on patrolling in the search of drug smugglers, some informant met and informed them that accused (i) Sourabh and (ii) Ansh Jain are involved in the narcotic drug trafficking and if the raid is conducted after 15 minutes, they can be apprehended in one Honda City car bearing No. HR-11J-4554. After sending requisite ruqa to the Police Station at around 6.50 p.m. one Honda City car bearing No. HR-11J-4554 was noticed coming and after stopping it, they disclosed their identity as Ansh Jain and Sourabh. Two green polythene bags were noticed lying on the rear seat of the car and after complying with the legal formalities, the search was effected and from the bags 68 vials of RX Codeine Phosphate and Triprolidine Hydrochloride Syrup of 100 ML each, total weighing 6 Liters 800 Ml. were recovered. After arresting of both the accused, they disclosed the name of third accused Tarun alleging therein that it was accused-Tarun, who used to sell Ayurvedic medicines in Mohindergarh and told that Corex sycrup can be purchased from Delhi on cheaper rates and also asked the petitioner to procure the same from Delhi and then deliver to him also. Further disclosure was that about 20 days earlier, he had gone to Delhi and purchased 150 vials. 50 vials were handed over to Tarun and 100 remaining are with the arrested accused.

Learned counsel for the petitioner(s) argue that as per the quantity though explained is to be 6 Liters 800 Ml. but the syrup bottles have been counted in its entirety and thereupon the syrup is weighed.

Confronted with the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Hira Singh and another v. Union of India and another, (2020) 20 SCC 272, learned counsel for the petitioners) submit that although the said judgment continues to apply, the correctness of the proposition regarding determination of commercial quantity is under consideration again before the Hon'ble Apex Court in Mayank Girishbhai Shah v. Union of India [Writ Petition (Civil) No.816 of 2025]. It is, therefore, argued that the petitioner(s) deserve the concession of regular bail, particularly in view of the fact that the petitioners – Ansh Jain and Sourabh have already undergone incarceration for more than 11 months and Tarun for more than 05 months year and the trial has not progressed.

Per contra, learned State counsel, while not disputing that the actual recovery, submits that the law declared in Hira Singh’s case continues to be binding. It is contended that, in view of the ratio laid down therein, the entire quantity of the seized contraband, including the neutral substance, has to be taken into consideration for determining whether the recovered quantity is small, intermediate or commercial. Merely because the issue is stated to be pending consideration before the Hon'ble Supreme Court would not entitle the petitioner(s) to the concession of bail.

Having heard learned counsel for the parties and considered the material available on record, this Court finds that the proposition laid down in Hira Singh’s case continues to hold the field. However, it is also a matter of record that the issue regarding determination of the quantity of contraband is stated to be under consideration before the Hon'ble Supreme Court. Without expressing any opinion on the merits of the controversy, this Court deems it appropriate to consider the petitioners' prayer for bail in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the present case. The object of pre-trial detention is to secure the presence of the accused during trial and not to inflict punishment before conviction. Continued incarceration of an undertrial, particularly when the trial is not likely to conclude in the near future, would not serve the ends of justice. Therefore, keeping in view the period of custody undergone by the petitioner(s), the stage of the trial, the absence of any criminal antecedents of a similar nature, and without commenting upon the merits of the case, this Court is of the considered view that the petitioner(s) has made out a case for grant of regular bail.

Considering the circumstances in totality and the aforementioned aspects, I do not find appropriate to continue the detention of the petitioner(s) any longer inside jail.

Needless to observe that the petitioner(s) shall not extend any threat and shall not influence any prosecution witness in any manner directly or indirectly.

cases. All the petitions stand disposed of. A photocopy of this order be placed on the files of other connected

21.07.2026 Whether speaking/reasoned: Whether Reportable: Yes/No Yes/No (SANJAY VASHISTH) JUDGE