CRM-M-68337- 122 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA Sabir alias Kala State of Haryana CORAM : HON'BLE MS Present: Mr. Mr. Sushil Bhardwaj, Addl. A.G Haryana with Mr. Vaibhav Sharma, AAG Haryana MANDEEP PANNU J. 1. This is the third petition filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for grant of the concession of regular bail to the petitioner in case FIR No. 216 dated 09.05.2023, registered under Section 21 and 29 of the NDPS Act, 198 Yamunanagar, District Yamuna Nagar. 2. As per the prosecution case, on 09.05.2023 ASI Jasbir Singh along with other police officials was present on patrolling duty near Government School, Shadipur. At about 01:25 PM, a secret informer informed the police that one Kayum and his wife Maina were indulging in the illegal sale of narcotic substances and were selling contraband from their house. Acting upon the said information, the police party proceeded towa associate independent witnesses. Thereafter, a Gazetted Officer and the local Municipal Councilor -2025 (O&M) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH -.- CRM Date of Decision : VERSUS Haryana HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MANDEEP PANNU Mr. Sunil Saini, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Sushil Bhardwaj, Addl. A.G Haryana with Mr. Vaibhav Sharma, AAG Haryana -.- MANDEEP PANNU J. (Oral) This is the third petition filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for grant of the concession of regular bail to the petitioner in case FIR No. 216 dated 09.05.2023, registered under Section 21 and 29 of the NDPS Act, 1985 and Section 201 of the IPC at Police Station Sadar Yamunanagar, District Yamuna Nagar. As per the prosecution case, on 09.05.2023 ASI Jasbir Singh along with other police officials was present on patrolling duty near Government School, bout 01:25 PM, a secret informer informed the police that one Kayum and his wife Maina were indulging in the illegal sale of narcotic substances and were selling contraband from their house. Acting upon the said information, the police party proceeded towards the house of the suspects and made efforts to associate independent witnesses. Thereafter, a Gazetted Officer and the local Councilor were also called to the spot. During the search of the house of -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-68337-2025 (O&M) Date of Decision : 05.03.2026 ....Petitioner ....Respondent MANDEEP PANNU , Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Sushil Bhardwaj, Addl. A.G Haryana with Mr. Vaibhav Sharma, AAG Haryana. This is the third petition filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for grant of the concession of regular bail to the petitioner in case FIR No. 216 dated 09.05.2023, registered under Section 21 5 and Section 201 of the IPC at Police Station Sadar As per the prosecution case, on 09.05.2023 ASI Jasbir Singh along with other police officials was present on patrolling duty near Government School, bout 01:25 PM, a secret informer informed the police that one Kayum and his wife Maina were indulging in the illegal sale of narcotic substances and were selling contraband from their house. Acting upon the said information, rds the house of the suspects and made efforts to associate independent witnesses. Thereafter, a Gazetted Officer and the local were also called to the spot. During the search of the house of This is the third petition filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for grant of the concession of regular bail to the petitioner in case FIR No. 216 dated 09.05.2023, registered under Section 21-C 5 and Section 201 of the IPC at Police Station Sadar As per the prosecution case, on 09.05.2023 ASI Jasbir Singh along with other police officials was present on patrolling duty near Government School, bout 01:25 PM, a secret informer informed the police that one Kayum and his wife Maina were indulging in the illegal sale of narcotic substances and were selling contraband from their house. Acting upon the said information, rds the house of the suspects and made efforts to associate independent witnesses. Thereafter, a Gazetted Officer and the local were also called to the spot. During the search of the house of TRIPTI SAINI 2026.03.05 14:44 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-68337- accused Kayum conducted in the presence of t Municipal Councilor recovered from the slab in the kitchen, which on examination was found to be heroin/smack. An amount of recovered contraband was weighed and found to be 311.07 grams. Necessary formalities including preparation of inventory and proceedings under Section 52 of the NDPS Act were conducted. 3. During investigation, accused Kayum was arrested on 05. on the basis of his disclosure statement, the present petitioner Sabir @ Kala was nominated in the case and was subsequently arrested on production warrants. Section 29 of the NDPS Act was added during investigation. After completion of investigation, the challan was presented before the trial Court. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case and he is innocent. It has been argued that the petitioner is not named in th the basis of the disclosure statement of co further submitted that no recovery has been effected from the present petitioner and the alleged recovery of 311.07 grams of heroin/smac house of co-accused Kayum and his wife Maina. Learned counsel further submits that co-accused Maina, from whose house the alleged recovery was effected, has already been granted the concession of anticipatory bail. It has also been that the provisions of the NDPS Act have not been complied with in their true spirit and the case of the prosecution rests mainly upon the disclosure statements. Learned counsel further submits that the petitioner has been in custody since long and the trial is likely to take considerable time to conclude. It is further contended -2025 (O&M) accused Kayum conducted in the presence of t Councilor, one transparent polythene containing narcotic substance was recovered from the slab in the kitchen, which on examination was found to be heroin/smack. An amount of ₹9,900/- was also recovered from the same p recovered contraband was weighed and found to be 311.07 grams. Necessary formalities including preparation of inventory and proceedings under Section 52 of the NDPS Act were conducted. During investigation, accused Kayum was arrested on 05. on the basis of his disclosure statement, the present petitioner Sabir @ Kala was nominated in the case and was subsequently arrested on production warrants. Section 29 of the NDPS Act was added during investigation. After completion of gation, the challan was presented before the trial Court. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case and he is innocent. It has been argued that the petitioner is not named in the FIR and his name surfaced only on the basis of the disclosure statement of co-accused Kayum and his wife Maina. It is further submitted that no recovery has been effected from the present petitioner and the alleged recovery of 311.07 grams of heroin/smac accused Kayum and his wife Maina. Learned counsel further submits accused Maina, from whose house the alleged recovery was effected, has already been granted the concession of anticipatory bail. It has also been that the provisions of the NDPS Act have not been complied with in their true spirit and the case of the prosecution rests mainly upon the disclosure statements. Learned counsel further submits that the petitioner has been in custody since long the trial is likely to take considerable time to conclude. It is further contended -2- accused Kayum conducted in the presence of the Gazetted Officer and the , one transparent polythene containing narcotic substance was recovered from the slab in the kitchen, which on examination was found to be was also recovered from the same place. The recovered contraband was weighed and found to be 311.07 grams. Necessary formalities including preparation of inventory and proceedings under Section 52 During investigation, accused Kayum was arrested on 05.06.2023 and on the basis of his disclosure statement, the present petitioner Sabir @ Kala was nominated in the case and was subsequently arrested on production warrants. Section 29 of the NDPS Act was added during investigation. After completion of gation, the challan was presented before the trial Court. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case and he is innocent. It has been e FIR and his name surfaced only on accused Kayum and his wife Maina. It is further submitted that no recovery has been effected from the present petitioner and the alleged recovery of 311.07 grams of heroin/smack was effected from the accused Kayum and his wife Maina. Learned counsel further submits accused Maina, from whose house the alleged recovery was effected, has already been granted the concession of anticipatory bail. It has also been argued that the provisions of the NDPS Act have not been complied with in their true spirit and the case of the prosecution rests mainly upon the disclosure statements. Learned counsel further submits that the petitioner has been in custody since long the trial is likely to take considerable time to conclude. It is further contended he Gazetted Officer and the , one transparent polythene containing narcotic substance was recovered from the slab in the kitchen, which on examination was found to be lace. The recovered contraband was weighed and found to be 311.07 grams. Necessary formalities including preparation of inventory and proceedings under Section 52-A 06.2023 and on the basis of his disclosure statement, the present petitioner Sabir @ Kala was nominated in the case and was subsequently arrested on production warrants. Section 29 of the NDPS Act was added during investigation. After completion of Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case and he is innocent. It has been e FIR and his name surfaced only on accused Kayum and his wife Maina. It is further submitted that no recovery has been effected from the present petitioner k was effected from the accused Kayum and his wife Maina. Learned counsel further submits accused Maina, from whose house the alleged recovery was effected, has argued that the provisions of the NDPS Act have not been complied with in their true spirit and the case of the prosecution rests mainly upon the disclosure statements. Learned counsel further submits that the petitioner has been in custody since long the trial is likely to take considerable time to conclude. It is further contended TRIPTI SAINI 2026.03.05 14:44 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-68337- that out of 24 prosecution witnesses, 18 witnesses have already been examined till date and therefore no useful purpose would be served by keeping the petitioner in further judicial custody. 5. On the other hand, learned State counsel has certificate, which is taken on record submitted that the allegations against the petitioner are serious in nature. It is further contended that two other criminal cases are also pending against the petitioner. Learned State counsel further submits that the ear petition filed by the petitioner was dismissed by a Co vide order dated 02.09.2025 on the ground that merely the fact that the period of custody has increased also on the ground that two other criminal cases are pending against the petitioner. Therefore, it is submitted that the petitioner does not deserve the concession of regular bail. 6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after going the record of the case, this Court is of the considered view that the present petition deserves to be allowed. Although the earlier regular bail was dismissed by a Coordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 02.09.202 however, certain material developments have taken place thereafter which constitute a change in circumstances. The petitioner has now remained in custody for about one year and eight months. Moreover, out of the total 24 prosecution witnesses cited by t which is a substantial number of witnesses, and therefore the possibility of the petitioner influencing the prosecution witnesses is considerably reduced. -2025 (O&M) that out of 24 prosecution witnesses, 18 witnesses have already been examined till date and therefore no useful purpose would be served by keeping the petitioner in judicial custody. On the other hand, learned State counsel has certificate, which is taken on record. He has submitted that the allegations against the petitioner are serious in nature. It is further contended that two other criminal cases are also pending against the petitioner. Learned State counsel further submits that the ear petition filed by the petitioner was dismissed by a Co vide order dated 02.09.2025 on the ground that merely the fact that the period of custody has increased, does not entitle the accused to the concession of also on the ground that two other criminal cases are pending against the petitioner. Therefore, it is submitted that the petitioner does not deserve the concession of Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after going the record of the case, this Court is of the considered view that the present petition deserves to be allowed. Although the earlier regular bail was dismissed by a Coordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 02.09.202 however, certain material developments have taken place thereafter which constitute a change in circumstances. The petitioner has now remained in custody for about one year and eight months. Moreover, out of the total 24 prosecution witnesses cited by the prosecution, 18 witnesses have already been examined, which is a substantial number of witnesses, and therefore the possibility of the petitioner influencing the prosecution witnesses is considerably reduced. -3- that out of 24 prosecution witnesses, 18 witnesses have already been examined till date and therefore no useful purpose would be served by keeping the petitioner in On the other hand, learned State counsel has filed the custody has opposed the present petition and submitted that the allegations against the petitioner are serious in nature. It is further contended that two other criminal cases are also pending against the petitioner. Learned State counsel further submits that the earlier regular bail petition filed by the petitioner was dismissed by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 02.09.2025 on the ground that merely the fact that the period of does not entitle the accused to the concession of bail and also on the ground that two other criminal cases are pending against the petitioner. Therefore, it is submitted that the petitioner does not deserve the concession of Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after going through the record of the case, this Court is of the considered view that the present petition deserves to be allowed. Although the earlier regular bail petition of the petitioner was dismissed by a Coordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 02.09.202 however, certain material developments have taken place thereafter which constitute a change in circumstances. The petitioner has now remained in custody for about one year and eight months. Moreover, out of the total 24 prosecution he prosecution, 18 witnesses have already been examined, which is a substantial number of witnesses, and therefore the possibility of the petitioner influencing the prosecution witnesses is considerably reduced. that out of 24 prosecution witnesses, 18 witnesses have already been examined till date and therefore no useful purpose would be served by keeping the petitioner in filed the custody opposed the present petition and submitted that the allegations against the petitioner are serious in nature. It is further contended that two other criminal cases are also pending against the lier regular bail ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 02.09.2025 on the ground that merely the fact that the period of bail and also on the ground that two other criminal cases are pending against the petitioner. Therefore, it is submitted that the petitioner does not deserve the concession of through the record of the case, this Court is of the considered view that the present petition of the petitioner was dismissed by a Coordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 02.09.2025, however, certain material developments have taken place thereafter which constitute a change in circumstances. The petitioner has now remained in custody for about one year and eight months. Moreover, out of the total 24 prosecution he prosecution, 18 witnesses have already been examined, which is a substantial number of witnesses, and therefore the possibility of the TRIPTI SAINI 2026.03.05 14:44 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-68337- 7. This Court also finds merit in the the petitioner that no recovery has been effected from the present petitioner and the alleged recovery of contraband was effected from the house of co and his wife Maina. It is also not disputed that co house the recovery was effected, has already been granted the concession of anticipatory bail, whereas the main accused Kayum has also been released on bail on account of default as the challan was not presented within the prescribed p So far as the contention of the State that two other criminal cases are pending against the petitioner is concerned, the mere pendency of other cases cannot be the sole ground to deny the concession of bail when the facts and circumstances of the present case otherwise justify the grant of bail. 8. As regards the submission of learned State counsel that petitioner is involved in the Hon'ble Supreme Court in ‘ another’, 2012 (2) SCC 382 present case are to be seen while deciding a bail application and the bail application of the petitioner cannot be rejected solely on the ground that other/ another cases). The relevant portion of the said judgment is reproduced hereinbelow:- "As observed by the High Court, merely on the basis of criminal antecedents, the claim of the second respondent cannot be rejected. other words, it is the duty of the Court to find out the role of the accused in the case in which he has been charged and other circumstances such as possibility of fleeing away from the jurisdiction of the Court etc." 9. Keeping in view the period of custody undergone by the petitioner, the stage of the trial, the fact that a substantial number of prosecution witnesses -2025 (O&M) This Court also finds merit in the the petitioner that no recovery has been effected from the present petitioner and the alleged recovery of contraband was effected from the house of co and his wife Maina. It is also not disputed that co house the recovery was effected, has already been granted the concession of anticipatory bail, whereas the main accused Kayum has also been released on bail on account of default as the challan was not presented within the prescribed p So far as the contention of the State that two other criminal cases are pending against the petitioner is concerned, the mere pendency of other cases cannot be the sole ground to deny the concession of bail when the facts and circumstances of the esent case otherwise justify the grant of bail. As regards the submission of learned State counsel that petitioner is involved in more criminal cases, reference is placed upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in ‘Maulana Mohd. Amir Rashadi Vs. another’, 2012 (2) SCC 382 in which, it is held that the facts and circumstances of the present case are to be seen while deciding a bail application and the bail application of the petitioner cannot be rejected solely on the ground that cases). The relevant portion of the said judgment is reproduced "As observed by the High Court, merely on the basis of criminal antecedents, the claim of the second respondent cannot be rejected. other words, it is the duty of the Court to find out the role of the accused in the case in which he has been charged and other circumstances such as possibility of fleeing away from the jurisdiction of the Court etc." Keeping in view the period of custody undergone by the petitioner, the stage of the trial, the fact that a substantial number of prosecution witnesses -4- This Court also finds merit in the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner that no recovery has been effected from the present petitioner and the alleged recovery of contraband was effected from the house of co-accused Kayum and his wife Maina. It is also not disputed that co-accused Maina, from whose house the recovery was effected, has already been granted the concession of anticipatory bail, whereas the main accused Kayum has also been released on bail on account of default as the challan was not presented within the prescribed period. So far as the contention of the State that two other criminal cases are pending against the petitioner is concerned, the mere pendency of other cases cannot be the sole ground to deny the concession of bail when the facts and circumstances of the As regards the submission of learned State counsel that , reference is placed upon the judgment of Maulana Mohd. Amir Rashadi Vs. State of U.P. and in which, it is held that the facts and circumstances of the present case are to be seen while deciding a bail application and the bail application of the petitioner cannot be rejected solely on the ground that the petitioner is involved in cases). The relevant portion of the said judgment is reproduced "As observed by the High Court, merely on the basis of criminal antecedents, the claim of the second respondent cannot be rejected. other words, it is the duty of the Court to find out the role of the accused in the case in which he has been charged and other circumstances such as possibility of fleeing away from the Keeping in view the period of custody undergone by the petitioner, the stage of the trial, the fact that a substantial number of prosecution witnesses submission of learned counsel for the petitioner that no recovery has been effected from the present petitioner and the accused Kayum ed Maina, from whose house the recovery was effected, has already been granted the concession of anticipatory bail, whereas the main accused Kayum has also been released on bail eriod. So far as the contention of the State that two other criminal cases are pending against the petitioner is concerned, the mere pendency of other cases cannot be the sole ground to deny the concession of bail when the facts and circumstances of the As regards the submission of learned State counsel that , reference is placed upon the judgment of State of U.P. and in which, it is held that the facts and circumstances of the present case are to be seen while deciding a bail application and the bail application of the petitioner is involved in cases). The relevant portion of the said judgment is reproduced "As observed by the High Court, merely on the basis of criminal antecedents, the claim of the second respondent cannot be rejected. In other words, it is the duty of the Court to find out the role of the accused in the case in which he has been charged and other circumstances such as possibility of fleeing away from the Keeping in view the period of custody undergone by the petitioner, the stage of the trial, the fact that a substantial number of prosecution witnesses TRIPTI SAINI 2026.03.05 14:44 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-68337- have already been examined and also considering the role attributed to the petitioner in the present case would be served by keeping the petitioner in further judicial custody. 10. Consequently, the present petition is allowed and petitioner Sabir @ Kala is ordered to be released on regular bail, subject bail bonds and surety bonds to the satisfaction of the learned Trial Court/Duty Magistrate concerned. 11. However, any observation made hereinabove shall not be construed as an expression on the merits of the case during trial. 12. All pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, stands disposed of. March 05, 2026 tripti Whether speaking/non Whether reportable -2025 (O&M) have already been examined and also considering the role attributed to the petitioner in the present case, this Court is of the opinion that no useful purpose would be served by keeping the petitioner in further judicial custody. Consequently, the present petition is allowed and petitioner Sabir @ Kala is ordered to be released on regular bail, subject bail bonds and surety bonds to the satisfaction of the learned Trial Court/Duty Magistrate concerned. However, any observation made hereinabove shall not be construed as an expression on the merits of the case during trial. All pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, stands disposed of. Whether speaking/non-speaking : Speaking Whether reportable : Yes/No -5- have already been examined and also considering the role attributed to the , this Court is of the opinion that no useful purpose would be served by keeping the petitioner in further judicial custody. Consequently, the present petition is allowed and petitioner Sabir @ Kala is ordered to be released on regular bail, subject to his furnishing adequate bail bonds and surety bonds to the satisfaction of the learned Trial Court/Duty However, any observation made hereinabove shall not be construed as an expression on the merits of the case during trial. All pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, stands disposed of. (MANDEEP PANNU) JUDGE : Speaking : Yes/No have already been examined and also considering the role attributed to the , this Court is of the opinion that no useful purpose Consequently, the present petition is allowed and petitioner Sabir @ to his furnishing adequate bail bonds and surety bonds to the satisfaction of the learned Trial Court/Duty However, any observation made hereinabove shall not be construed as All pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, stands disposed of. TRIPTI SAINI 2026.03.05 14:44 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document