CRM-M-31852- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT (247) PAWAN KUMAR @ PANDIT STATE OF HARYANA CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANISHA BATRA Present: Mr. Ms. Himani Arora, DAG, Haryana MANISHA BATRA, J. (ORAL) 1. The Section 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short “BNSS”) for grant of regular registered under Sections 21C and 29 of the Substances Act and Section 25(1)(a) of Arms Act at Police Station Civil Line Sirsa, District Sirsa. His previous petition bearing CRM dismissed as withdrawn 2. As per the allegations, on 21.03.2025, the accuse Pardeep Singh were apprehended and 4.256 Kg their conscious possession which was taken into custody by the Police. They -2026 (O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH PAWAN KUMAR @ PANDIT Versus HARYANA HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANISHA BATRA Mr. Manvinder Sidhu, Advocate for the petitioner Ms. Himani Arora, DAG, Haryana **** MANISHA BATRA, J. (ORAL) The instant one is the second petition Section 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short “BNSS”) regular bail in case arising out of FIR No. registered under Sections 21C and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic tances Act and Section 25(1)(a) of Arms Act at Police Station Civil Line Sirsa, District Sirsa. His previous petition bearing CRM as withdrawn by this Court on 14.01.2026. As per the allegations, on 21.03.2025, the accuse Pardeep Singh were apprehended and 4.256 Kg their conscious possession which was taken into custody by the Police. They IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-31852-2026 (O&M) Date of decision : 02.07.2026 ... Petitioner ...Respondent HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANISHA BATRA Advocate for the petitioner petition filed by the petitioner under Section 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short “BNSS”) in case arising out of FIR No.107 dated 21.03.2025 Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic tances Act and Section 25(1)(a) of Arms Act at Police Station Civil Line Sirsa, District Sirsa. His previous petition bearing CRM-M-71848 of 2025 was by this Court on 14.01.2026. As per the allegations, on 21.03.2025, the accused Abhishek and Pardeep Singh were apprehended and 4.256 Kgs of heroin was recovered from their conscious possession which was taken into custody by the Police. They (O&M) 2026 .. Petitioner ...Respondent under Section 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short “BNSS”) 107 dated 21.03.2025 Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic tances Act and Section 25(1)(a) of Arms Act at Police Station Civil Line 71848 of 2025 was d Abhishek and of heroin was recovered from their conscious possession which was taken into custody by the Police. They AMIT SHARMA 2026.07.03 14:00 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment. CRM-M-31852- were formally arrested and interrogated. Accused Abhishek suffered disclosure statement to the effect that he had purchased the contraband from Village Bandi, District Bathinda and the same was to be supplied to the present petitioner and some other persons and an amount of Rs.1 lakh had been received by them in advance from the petitioner for petitioner was nominated as an accused. He was arrested on 25.04.2025. Investigation now stands concluded. 3. It is argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that he has been falsely implicated in this c which cannot be considered to be legally admissible in evidence. He is in custody since long. The trial will take considerable time to conclude as no prosecution witness has been examined so far. No from him. His involvement in other cases cannot be considered to be a reason for denying benefit of bail. It is, therefore, argued that the petition deserves to be allowed. 4. Notice of motion. 5. Learned State counsel has a ready to argue the matter. the petitioner and has submitted that second petition. The is a habitual offender, involve one case of similar nature and one case under the registered provisions of Excise -2026 (O&M) 2 were formally arrested and interrogated. Accused Abhishek suffered disclosure the effect that he had purchased the contraband from Village Bandi, District Bathinda and the same was to be supplied to the present petitioner and some other persons and an amount of Rs.1 lakh had been received by them in advance from the petitioner for the purpose of purchasing the contraband. The petitioner was nominated as an accused. He was arrested on 25.04.2025. Investigation now stands concluded. It is argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that he has been falsely implicated in this case on the basis of disclosure statement of co which cannot be considered to be legally admissible in evidence. He is in custody since long. The trial will take considerable time to conclude as no prosecution witness has been examined so far. No from him. His involvement in other cases cannot be considered to be a reason for denying benefit of bail. It is, therefore, argued that the petition deserves to Notice of motion. Learned State counsel has advance notice of the petition and is ready to argue the matter. She has placed on record the custody certificate of the petitioner and has submitted that this petition is not maintainable being the second petition. The allegations against the petitioner is a habitual offender, involved in 11 other cases. He has even been convicted in one case of similar nature and one case under the registered provisions of Excise were formally arrested and interrogated. Accused Abhishek suffered disclosure the effect that he had purchased the contraband from Village Bandi, District Bathinda and the same was to be supplied to the present petitioner and some other persons and an amount of Rs.1 lakh had been received by them in the purpose of purchasing the contraband. The petitioner was nominated as an accused. He was arrested on 25.04.2025. It is argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that he has been ase on the basis of disclosure statement of co-accused which cannot be considered to be legally admissible in evidence. He is in custody since long. The trial will take considerable time to conclude as no prosecution witness has been examined so far. No recovery has been effected from him. His involvement in other cases cannot be considered to be a reason for denying benefit of bail. It is, therefore, argued that the petition deserves to dvance notice of the petition and is She has placed on record the custody certificate of this petition is not maintainable being the allegations against the petitioner are serious in nature. He d in 11 other cases. He has even been convicted in one case of similar nature and one case under the registered provisions of Excise were formally arrested and interrogated. Accused Abhishek suffered disclosure the effect that he had purchased the contraband from Village Bandi, District Bathinda and the same was to be supplied to the present petitioner and some other persons and an amount of Rs.1 lakh had been received by them in the purpose of purchasing the contraband. The petitioner was nominated as an accused. He was arrested on 25.04.2025. It is argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that he has been accused which cannot be considered to be legally admissible in evidence. He is in custody since long. The trial will take considerable time to conclude as no recovery has been effected from him. His involvement in other cases cannot be considered to be a reason for denying benefit of bail. It is, therefore, argued that the petition deserves to dvance notice of the petition and is She has placed on record the custody certificate of this petition is not maintainable being the are serious in nature. He d in 11 other cases. He has even been convicted in one case of similar nature and one case under the registered provisions of Excise AMIT SHARMA 2026.07.03 14:00 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment. CRM-M-31852- Act. There are chances of his committing similar offences or a extended benefit of bail. It is thus argued that the petition does not deserve to be allowed. 6. This Court has heard the rival submissions made by learned counsel for the parties at considerable length. 7. The petitioner had been nominated in this case on the basis of disclosure statement of the co contraband recovered from him and the co allegations, he had given a sum of Rs.1 lakh is no material on record to show the same. The petitioner is shown to be involved in several other cases registered against him, some of which are under the provisions of the NDPS Act, however, on account of his involve same, he cannot be denied benefit of bail in this case. He has been in custody for a period of 01 year 02 months and 06 days. Trial will take considerable time to conclude as no prosecution witness has been examined so far. The co accused Ranjeet Singh and Dev Raj @ Titu against whom similar allegations were levelled have been extended benefit of bail. On parity be extended the benefit of bail. His prolonged incarceration militates against his fundamental rights guarantee Singh Vs. State of Tamil Nadu, (2021) 4 SCC 1, Apex Court that the disclosure statements made under Section 67 of NDPS Act, are inadmissible in evidence unless corroborated by ind -2026 (O&M) 3 Act. There are chances of his committing similar offences or a extended benefit of bail. It is thus argued that the petition does not deserve to be This Court has heard the rival submissions made by learned counsel for the parties at considerable length. The petitioner had been nominated in this case on the basis of disclosure statement of the co-accused Abhishek as prospective purchaser of the contraband recovered from him and the co-accused Pardeep. As per the he had given a sum of Rs.1 lakh to the co is no material on record to show the same. The petitioner is shown to be involved in several other cases registered against him, some of which are under the provisions of the NDPS Act, however, on account of his involve same, he cannot be denied benefit of bail in this case. He has been in custody for a period of 01 year 02 months and 06 days. Trial will take considerable time to conclude as no prosecution witness has been examined so far. The co njeet Singh and Dev Raj @ Titu against whom similar allegations were levelled have been extended benefit of bail. On parity be extended the benefit of bail. His prolonged incarceration militates against his fundamental rights guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution. Singh Vs. State of Tamil Nadu, (2021) 4 SCC 1, Apex Court that the disclosure statements made under Section 67 of NDPS Act, are inadmissible in evidence unless corroborated by ind Act. There are chances of his committing similar offences or absconding, if extended benefit of bail. It is thus argued that the petition does not deserve to be This Court has heard the rival submissions made by learned counsel The petitioner had been nominated in this case on the basis of accused Abhishek as prospective purchaser of the accused Pardeep. As per the to the co-accused. However, there is no material on record to show the same. The petitioner is shown to be involved in several other cases registered against him, some of which are under the provisions of the NDPS Act, however, on account of his involvement in the same, he cannot be denied benefit of bail in this case. He has been in custody for a period of 01 year 02 months and 06 days. Trial will take considerable time to conclude as no prosecution witness has been examined so far. The co- njeet Singh and Dev Raj @ Titu against whom similar allegations were levelled have been extended benefit of bail. On parity, he too deserves to be extended the benefit of bail. His prolonged incarceration militates against his d under Article 21 of the Constitution. In Tofan Singh Vs. State of Tamil Nadu, (2021) 4 SCC 1, it was observed by Hon’ble Apex Court that the disclosure statements made under Section 67 of NDPS Act, are inadmissible in evidence unless corroborated by independent material. While bsconding, if extended benefit of bail. It is thus argued that the petition does not deserve to be This Court has heard the rival submissions made by learned counsel The petitioner had been nominated in this case on the basis of accused Abhishek as prospective purchaser of the accused Pardeep. As per the accused. However, there is no material on record to show the same. The petitioner is shown to be involved in several other cases registered against him, some of which are under ment in the same, he cannot be denied benefit of bail in this case. He has been in custody for a period of 01 year 02 months and 06 days. Trial will take considerable time - njeet Singh and Dev Raj @ Titu against whom similar allegations he too deserves to be extended the benefit of bail. His prolonged incarceration militates against his Tofan it was observed by Hon’ble Apex Court that the disclosure statements made under Section 67 of NDPS Act, ependent material. While AMIT SHARMA 2026.07.03 14:00 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment. CRM-M-31852- the veracity of the disclosure statement against the petitioner will be tested during the course of trial, however, at this stage, it cannot be ignored that no recovery has been effected from the petitioner. There is nothing on rec this stage, to connect the petitioner either with the subject crime or to show that he was connected with the co Investigation has been completed. Keeping in view the aforesaid facts and circumstances, th would be served by keeping the petitioner in custody anymore. consideration the above discussed facts but without meaning to make any comments on the merits of the case lest the same manner, the petition is allowed and the bail, subject to his furnishing personal and surety bonds to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court/Chief Judicial Magistrate/Duty Magistrate co 8. Since the main petition has been any, is rendered infructuous. 02.07.2026 Amit Sharma -2026 (O&M) 4 the veracity of the disclosure statement against the petitioner will be tested during the course of trial, however, at this stage, it cannot be ignored that no recovery has been effected from the petitioner. There is nothing on rec this stage, to connect the petitioner either with the subject crime or to show that he was connected with the co-accused in any manner at the relevant time. Investigation has been completed. Keeping in view the aforesaid facts and circumstances, this Court is of the considered opinion that no useful purpose would be served by keeping the petitioner in custody anymore. consideration the above discussed facts but without meaning to make any comments on the merits of the case lest the same manner, the petition is allowed and the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail, subject to his furnishing personal and surety bonds to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court/Chief Judicial Magistrate/Duty Magistrate co Since the main petition has been allowed, any, is rendered infructuous. (MANISHA BATRA) Whether speaking/reasoned:- Yes/No Whether reportable:- Yes/No the veracity of the disclosure statement against the petitioner will be tested during the course of trial, however, at this stage, it cannot be ignored that no recovery has been effected from the petitioner. There is nothing on record, at this stage, to connect the petitioner either with the subject crime or to show that accused in any manner at the relevant time. Investigation has been completed. Keeping in view the aforesaid facts and is Court is of the considered opinion that no useful purpose would be served by keeping the petitioner in custody anymore. Taking into consideration the above discussed facts but without meaning to make any comments on the merits of the case lest the same prejudice the trial in any petitioner is ordered to be released on bail, subject to his furnishing personal and surety bonds to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court/Chief Judicial Magistrate/Duty Magistrate concerned. allowed, pending application, if (MANISHA BATRA) JUDGE Yes/No the veracity of the disclosure statement against the petitioner will be tested during the course of trial, however, at this stage, it cannot be ignored that no ord, at this stage, to connect the petitioner either with the subject crime or to show that accused in any manner at the relevant time. Investigation has been completed. Keeping in view the aforesaid facts and is Court is of the considered opinion that no useful purpose Taking into consideration the above discussed facts but without meaning to make any prejudice the trial in any petitioner is ordered to be released on bail, subject to his furnishing personal and surety bonds to the satisfaction of the pending application, if AMIT SHARMA 2026.07.03 14:00 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment.