The High Court
Case Details
CRM-M No.45059 of 2025 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 239 ***** CRM-M No.45059 of 2025 Date of decision : 25.8.2025 Rabinder Singh ………….Petitioner State of Haryana …….Respondent Versus
Legal Reasoning
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL Present: Mr. Lalit Kumar Yadav, Advocate, for the petitioner Mr. Deepak Grewal, DAG, Haryana --- SUMEET GOEL, J. (ORAL) 1. Present petition has been filed under Section 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, for grant of regular bail to the petitioner in case bearing FIR No.26 dated 12.02.2025, registered for the offences punishable under Section 20-C and Section 29 (added later on) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short ‘NDPS Act’), at Police Station Sector 20, Panchkula, District Panchkula. 2. The gravamen of the allegations against the petitioner is that he is an accused of being involved in an FIR pertaining to NDPS Act involving 1 kg 167 grams of charas allegedly recovered from his co- accused. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has iterated that the petitioner is in custody since 16.02.2025. Learned counsel for the petitioner has Ashwani Kumar 2025.08.25 18:41 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M No.45059 of 2025 -2- further submitted that the mandatory provisions of the NDPS Act have not been complied with, and thus, the prosecution case suffers from inherent defects. Learned counsel has argued that the petitioner has been falsely implicated into the FIR in question. Learned counsel has iterated that the contraband alleged to have been recovered from the co-accused is 1 kg 167 grams of charas, which is marginally above the threshold limit of non-commercial quantity specified in the notification issued under the NDPS Act. Learned counsel has further argued that upon asking of the co- accused, the CCTV footage of Police Station Chandimandir, District Panchkula has been preserved, which effectively goes on to show the innocence of the petitioner. Thus, regular bail is prayed for. 4. Learned State counsel has opposed the present petition by arguing that the allegations raised against the petitioner are serious in nature and, thus, he does not deserve the concession of the regular bail. Learned State counsel has further submitted that the instant bail plea is barred by the rigors of Section 37 of the NDPS Act, and thus, the same ought to be dismissed. Learned State counsel seeks to place on record custody certificate dated 23.08.2025 in Court, which is taken on record. 5. I have heard counsel for the rival parties and have gone through the available records of the case. 6. The petitioner was arrested on 16.02.2025 wherein after investigation was carried out and challan was presented on 14.07.2025. Total 19 prosecution witnesses have been cited, and the charges are yet to be framed. It is thus, indubitable that conclusion of the trial will take Ashwani Kumar 2025.08.25 18:41 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M No.45059 of 2025 -3- long. It is not in dispute that the contraband recovered from the co- accused is 1 kg 167 grams of charas, which is marginally above threshold limit of non-commercial quantity. Reliance in this regard can be placed upon the orders passed by this Court in Rajdev Giri versus State of Punjab, CRM-M-44898-2019, decided on 18.09.2020; Rahish versus State of Haryana, CRM-M-36498-2020, decided on 11.11.2020; Karambir versus State of Haryana, CRM-M-31820-2019, decided on 28.08.2019: Jagjit Singh @ Jagga Gill versus State of Punjab, CRM-M- 41242-2019, decided on 27.02.2020 and Baljit Kaur @ Baljito versus State of Punjab, CRM-M-12849-2020, decided on 04.06.2020, wherein accused were enlarged on bail in cases where the alleged recovery was slightly more than the quantity prescribed for commercial category under the NDPS Act. The rival contentions raised at Bar give rise to debatable issues shall be ratiocinated upon during the course of trial. This Court does not deem it appropriate to delve deep into these rival contentions, at this stage, lest it may prejudice the trial. Nothing tangible has been brought forward to indicate the likelihood of the petitioner absconding from the process of justice or interfering with the prosecution evidence. 6.1. As per custody certificate dated 23.08.2025 filed by the learned State counsel, the petitioner has already suffered incarceration for a period of more than 6 months and 7 days. In this view of the matter, the rigor imposed under Section 37 of the NDPS Act stands diluted in light of the Article 21 of the Constitution of India. The petitioner is not shown to be involved in any other case. Ashwani Kumar 2025.08.25 18:41 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M No.45059 of 2025 -4- Suffice to say, further detention of the petitioner as an undertrial is not warranted in the facts and circumstances of the case. 7. In view of above, the present petition is allowed. Petitioner is ordered to be released on regular bail on his furnishing bail/surety bonds to the satisfaction of the Ld. concerned trial Court/Duty Magistrate. However, in addition to conditions that may be imposed by the concerned trial Court/Duty Magistrate, the petitioner shall remain bound by the following conditions: The petitioner shall not mis-use the liberty granted. (i) (ii) The petitioner shall not tamper with any evidence, oral or documentary, during the trial. (iii) The petitioner shall not absent himself on any date before the trial. (iv) The petitioner shall not commit any offence while on bail. (v) The petitioner shall deposit his passport, if any, with the trial Court. (vi) The petitioner shall give his cellphone number to the Investigating Officer/SHO of concerned Police Station and shall not change his cell-phone number without prior permission of the trial Court/Illaqa Magistrate. (vii) The petitioner shall not in any manner try to delay the trial. (viii) The petitioner shall submit, on the first working day of every month, an affidavit, before the concerned trial Court, to the effect that he has not been involved in commission of any offence after being released on bail. In case the petitioner is found to be involved in any offence after his being enlarged on bail in the present FIR, on the basis of his affidavit or otherwise, the State to move, forthwith, for cancellation of his bail which plea, but of course, shall be ratiocinated upon merits thereof. is mandated 8. In case of breach of any of the aforesaid conditions and those which may be imposed by concerned trial Court/Duty Magistrate as directed hereinabove or upon showing any other sufficient cause, the Ashwani Kumar 2025.08.25 18:41 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M No.45059 of 2025 -5- State/complainant shall be at liberty to move cancellation of bail of the petitioner. 9. 10. Ordered accordingly. Nothing said hereinabove shall be construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case. (SUMEET GOEL) JUDGE 25.8.2025 Ashwani Whether speaking/reasoned: Whether reportable: Yes/No Yes/No Ashwani Kumar 2025.08.25 18:41 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document