26.11.2025 Kamal Singh … v. CORAM: HON'BLE
Case Details
CRM-M No.47958 of 2025 -1- 231 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M No.47958 of 2025 Date of Decision: 26.11.2025 Kamal Singh ….. Petitioner State of Haryana ….. Respondent Versus CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BHARDWAJ Present: Dr. Anmol Rattan Sidhu, Senior Advocate with Ms. Kritima Sareen, Advocate for the petitioner. Ms. Diya Sodhi, Sr. DAG, Haryana. ***** RAJESH BHARDWAJ, J. (ORAL) 1. Present petition has been filed praying for the grant of
Facts
regular bail to the petitioner in case bearing FIR No.241, dated 07.09.2023, under Section 15(c) of NDPS Act, 1985, registered at Police Station Narwana Sadar, District Jind. 2. Succinctly, the facts of the case are that the police party, while on patrolling on 07.09.2023, received a secret information to the effect that Sandeep @ Koka is involved in selling of poppy husk and sitting in front of the tubewell room in the fields of Raja son of Bhartu and in case of raid, he can be apprehended along with the contraband. On receiving the secret information, the raiding party was constituted and reached the place as disclosed in the secret information. A young person along with 03 plastic bags was seen sitting outside the tubewell room in the field. On seeing the police, he tried to escape, however with the help RITTU 2025.11.27 12:17 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M No.47958 of 2025 -2- of police officials, he was apprehended. On asking, he disclosed his name to be Sandeep @ Koka. He was suspected to be carrying some contraband in 03 plastic bags being carried by him and thus, the search was conducted. On conducting the search of all 03 bags, in all 52 Kgs 700 grams of Doda Post (Poppy Husk) was recovered. The petitioner failed to produce any licence regarding the conscious possession of the same, thus, the FIR was registered and he was arrested on the spot. On registration of the FIR, the investigation commenced. The samples taken were sent to the FSL. During the investigation, complicity of the petitioner surfaced and thus, he was arrayed as an accused in the present case. Resultantly, the petitioner was arrested on 08.06.2025. The petitioner approached the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jind praying for the grant of regular bail. However, after hearing both the sides and finding no merit in the same, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jind, declined the bail application filed by the petitioner vide order dated 20.08.2025. Hence being aggrieved, the petitioner is before this Court by way of filing the present petition praying for the grant of regular bail. 3. Learned Senior counsel for the petitioner has vehemently contended that the petitioner has been falsely and frivolously implicated in the present case on the basis of disclosure statement of co-accused, which is not even an admissible evidence. He has submitted that co- accused, namely, Sandeep @ Koka, from whom the recovery of 52 Kgs 700 grams of Doda Post has been effected, has already been granted bail by this Court vide order dated 08.01.2025, passed in CRM-M-55693- RITTU 2025.11.27 12:17 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M No.47958 of 2025 -3- 2023. He has submitted that the recovered contraband from co-accused was 52 Kgs 700 grams of Doda Post, which is marginally above the commercial quantity. He has submitted that the petitioner has never been involved in any other case of the similar nature. He has submitted that though the petitioner is involved in one more case, however, he is on bail in that case. He has submitted that the petitioner is behind bars since 08.06.2025 and thus, in the overall facts and circumstances of the present case, the petitioner deserves to be granted bail. 4. Status report dated 18.11.2025 by way of an affidavit of Joginder Singh, HPS, Deputy Superintendent of Police, STF(H), Unit, Hisar on behalf of the respondent-State has been filed by learned State counsel today in the Court, which is taken on record. Copy thereof has
Legal Reasoning
reasonably satisfied on a prima facie look at the material on record (whenever the bail application is made) that the accused is not guilty. Any other interpretation, would result in complete denial of the bail to a person accused of offences such as those enacted under Section 37 of the NDPS Act. 20 xxxxx 21 .....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. 22 xxxxx 23. There is a further danger of the prisoner turning to crime, “as crime not only turns admirable, but the more professional the crime, more honour is paid to the criminal”22 (also see Donald Clemmer’s ‘The Prison Community’ published in 194023). Incarceration has further deleterious effects - where the accused belongs to the weakest economic strata: immediate loss of livelihood, and in several cases, scattering of families as well as loss of family bonds and alienation from society. The courts therefore, have to be sensitive to these aspects (because in the event of an acquittal, the loss to the accused is irreparable), and ensure that trials – especially in cases, where special laws enact stringent provisions, are taken up and concluded speedily.' 9. The veracity of the allegations would be assessed only after the conclusion of the trial and on the appreciation of evidence to be led by both the parties before the trial Court. This Court would refrain itself from commenting anything on the merits of the case. The trial of the case RITTU 2025.11.27 12:17 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M No.47958 of 2025 -6- will take sufficient long time. Keeping in view the arguments raised by both the sides and perusing the record, this Court is of the opinion that learned counsel for the petitioner succeeds in making out a case for grant of regular bail to the petitioner. 10. Accordingly, the present petition is allowed and the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail on his furnishing bail/surety bonds to the satisfaction of the concerned trial Court/Duty Magistrate. 11 Nothing said herein shall be treated as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case. 26.11.2025 rittu (RAJESH BHARDWAJ) JUDGE Whether Speaking/Reasoned Whether Reportable : : Yes/No Yes/No RITTU 2025.11.27 12:17 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
Arguments
been supplied to learned counsel for the petitioner. 5. Per contra, learned State counsel has vehemently opposed the submissions made by counsel for the petitioner. She has drawn the attention of this Court to the status report filed and has submitted that the petitioner is involved in 03 other cases bearing FIR No.23/2012, under Sections 34(2) of Excise Act, registered at Police Station Nalkhera, District Agar, MP; FIR No.1023, dated 27.12.2015, under Sections 223, 224 IPC and Sections 7 & 8 of PC Act, registered at Police Station City Jind, District Jind and FIR No.867, dated 25.11.2021, under Sections 146, 180, 196, 5 of MV Act and Section 3/181 of MP Excise Act, Kotwali, District Agar, MP. She has further submitted that the challan is already presented. She has submitted that the recovery effected from the co-accused is commercial in nature and thus, the provisions of Section 37 RITTU 2025.11.27 12:17 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M No.47958 of 2025 -4- of NDPS Act are attracted. She has produced custody certificate of the petitioner today in the Court, which is taken on record. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record with their able assistance. 7. On hearing learned counsel for the parties and perusing the record, it is deciphered that the petitioner was arrayed as an accused in the present case on the basis of disclosure statement of co-accused. Recovery of 52 Kgs 700 grams of Doda Post in the present case, which is commercial in nature, has been effected from co-accused, namely, Sandeep @ Koka, who has already been granted bail by this Court vide order dated 08.01.2025. Status report filed would show that though the petitioner was prosecuted in 03 other cases, however in 01 case, he has been acquitted and in 01 case, he is on bail and out of them, no case is under the NDPS Act. Custody certificate produced would show that the petitioner has suffered incarceration of 05 months and 18 days as on 25.11.2025. 8. As held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Mohd Muslim @ Hussain Vs. State (NCT of Delhi), 2023 LiveLaw(SC)260, this Court is of the opinion that the case of the petitioner is covered by the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. In the abovesaid case Hon'ble Supreme Court expressed its views as under:- 19. A plain and literal interpretation of the conditions under Section 37 (i.e., that Court should be satisfied that the accused is not guilty and would not commit any offence) would effectively exclude grant of bail altogether, resulting in punitive detention and unsanctioned preventive detention as well. Therefore, the only manner in which such special RITTU 2025.11.27 12:17 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M No.47958 of 2025 -5- conditions as enacted under Section 37 can be considered within constitutional parameters is where the court is