CRM CRM CRM CRM----M M M M----6636 6636 6636 6636----2025 (O&M) 2025 (O&M) 2025 (O&M) 2025 (O&M) 279 279 279 279 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA Ashok Mittal State of Haryana CORAM: CORAM: CORAM: CORAM: Present: Present: Present: Present:- SUMEET GOEL SUMEET GOEL SUMEET GOEL SUMEET GOEL 1. Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha for grant of regular bail to the petitioner in case bearing FIR No 05.02.2023, registered for the off 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances ‘NDPS Act’), 2. an accused of being involved in an FIR pertaining to NDPS Act involving alleged recovery of @ Kalia, and the petitioner has been no said Jagbir @ Kalia 3. in custody since submitted that the mandatory provisions of t 2025 (O&M) 2025 (O&M) 2025 (O&M) 2025 (O&M) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA Date of decision: Date of decision: Date of decision: Date of decision: versus Haryana HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL Mr. Arjunveer Sharma, Advocate Mr. Vishal Singh, AAG Haryana. ***** ***** ***** ***** SUMEET GOEL SUMEET GOEL SUMEET GOEL SUMEET GOEL, J. (ORAL) , J. (ORAL) , J. (ORAL) , J. (ORAL) Present third petition has been filed under Section Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short ‘BNSS’) for grant of regular bail to the petitioner in case bearing FIR No registered for the offences punishable under Section Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances , at Police Station Sadar Dadri, District Charkhi Dadri. 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 alleged recovery of 1 kg 250 grams of charas and the petitioner has been nominated in the disclosure statement of Jagbir @ Kalia. Learned counsel for the petitioner has iterated that the petitioner is in custody since 15.11.2023. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that the mandatory provisions of t 1111 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH AT CHANDIGARH AT CHANDIGARH AT CHANDIGARH CRM CRM CRM CRM----M M M M----6636 6636 6636 6636----2025 (O&M) 2025 (O&M) 2025 (O&M) 2025 (O&M) Date of decision: Date of decision: Date of decision: Date of decision: August 11, August 11, August 11, August 11, 2025 2025 2025 2025 ….Petitioner ….Respondent HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Vishal Singh, AAG Haryana. petition has been filed under Section 483 of the Sanhita, 2023 (for short ‘BNSS’) (439 Cr. P.C.) for grant of regular bail to the petitioner in case bearing FIR No.28 dated ences punishable under Sections 20(b)(ii)(c), Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short Sadar Dadri, District Charkhi Dadri. 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 charas from co-accused, namely Jagbir minated in the disclosure statement of Learned counsel for the petitioner has iterated that the petitioner is Learned counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that the mandatory provisions of the NDPS Act have not been 1111 2025 (O&M) 2025 (O&M) 2025 (O&M) 2025 (O&M) 2025 2025 2025 2025 Petitioner ….Respondent 483 of the (439 Cr. P.C.) dated 20(b)(ii)(c), (for short 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 accused, namely Jagbir minated in the disclosure statement of Learned counsel for the petitioner has iterated that the petitioner is Learned counsel for the petitioner has further he NDPS Act have not been MAHAVIR SINGH 2025.08.11 17:23 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/ judgment CRM CRM CRM CRM----M M M M----6636 6636 6636 6636----2025 (O&M) 2025 (O&M) 2025 (O&M) 2025 (O&M) complied with, and thus, the prosecution case suffers from inherent defects. Learned counsel has further iterated that sole basis to array the petitioner as an accused is the disclosure statement of co Learned counsel has further iterated that the petitioner has suffered incarceration for more than 4. that the allegations raised against the petitioner are serious in nature and, thus, he does not deserve the concession of the regular bail. has further submitted that t 37 of the NDPS Act, and thus, the same ought to be dismissed. counsel seeks to place on record custody certificate dated Court today, which is taken on record. 5. the available records of the case. 6. investigation was carried out and challan and the charges were have been cited, out of them, has been implicated as an accused in the FIR in question solely on the basis of disclosure statement of no other material available to connect the petitioner with the contraband except for the said disclosure statement. It is pertinent to note that such disclosure statements, in the absence of corroborative evidence h value and cannot be sole basis for implicating the petitioner. The reliance on 2025 (O&M) 2025 (O&M) 2025 (O&M) 2025 (O&M) complied with, and thus, the prosecution case suffers from inherent defects. Learned counsel has further iterated that sole basis to array the petitioner as an accused is the disclosure statement of co-accused, namely Learned counsel has further iterated that the petitioner has suffered incarceration for more than 01 year. Thus, regular bail is prayed for. 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. 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. counsel seeks to place on record custody certificate dated Court today, which is taken on record. I have heard counsel for the rival parties and have gone through the available records of the case. The petitioner was arrested on investigation was carried out and challan qua him and the charges were framed on 03.02.2024. Total 18 prosecution witnesses have been cited, out of them, 09 have been examined has been implicated as an accused in the FIR in question solely on the basis of disclosure statement of Jagbir @ Kalia. As per the prosecution version, there is no other material available to connect the petitioner with the contraband except for the said disclosure statement. It is pertinent to note that such disclosure statements, in the absence of corroborative evidence h value and cannot be sole basis for implicating the petitioner. The reliance on 2222 complied with, and thus, the prosecution case suffers from inherent defects. Learned counsel has further iterated that sole basis to array the petitioner as an accused, namely Jagbir @ Kalia. Learned counsel has further iterated that the petitioner has suffered . Thus, regular bail is prayed for. 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 he 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 08.08.2025 in the ave heard counsel for the rival parties and have gone through The petitioner was arrested on 15.11.2023 whereinafter him was presented on 22.12.2023 . Total 18 prosecution witnesses have been examined till date. The petitioner has been implicated as an accused in the FIR in question solely on the basis of As per the prosecution version, there is no other material available to connect the petitioner with the contraband except for the said disclosure statement. It is pertinent to note that such disclosure statements, in the absence of corroborative evidence hold limited evidentiary value and cannot be sole basis for implicating the petitioner. The reliance on 2222 complied with, and thus, the prosecution case suffers from inherent defects. Learned counsel has further iterated that sole basis to array the petitioner as an . Learned counsel has further iterated that the petitioner has suffered Learned State counsel has opposed the present petition by arguing that the allegations raised against the petitioner are serious in nature and, thus, Learned State counsel he instant bail plea is barred by the rigors of Section Learned State in the ave heard counsel for the rival parties and have gone through whereinafter 22.12.2023 . Total 18 prosecution witnesses The petitioner has been implicated as an accused in the FIR in question solely on the basis of As per the prosecution version, there is no other material available to connect the petitioner with the contraband except for the said disclosure statement. It is pertinent to note that such disclosure old limited evidentiary value and cannot be sole basis for implicating the petitioner. The reliance on MAHAVIR SINGH 2025.08.11 17:23 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/ judgment CRM CRM CRM CRM----M M M M----6636 6636 6636 6636----2025 (O&M) 2025 (O&M) 2025 (O&M) 2025 (O&M) this unsubstantiated statement raises serious doubts about the fairness and objectivity of the investigation. It is not in dispute that the petitioner wa present at the spot. The veracity and weightage required to be attached to the disclosure statement made by the co trial. 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 with the prosecution evidence. 6.1. by this Court in 65094 65094 65094 65094----2024 2024 2024 2024 decidendi of the judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Tofan Singh versus State of Tamil Nadu, AIR 2020 Supreme Court 5592; Smt. Najmunisha, Abdul Hamid Chandmiya @ Ladoo Bapu versus State of Gujrat, Narco Control Bureau, 2024 INSC 290; State by (NCB) Bengaluru vs. Pallulabid Ahmad Arimutta & Anr.’, 2022 (1) RCR (Criminal) 762; and Vijay Singh vs. The State of Haryana, bearing Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No.(s) 1266/2023, decided on 17.05.2023, has h 2025 (O&M) 2025 (O&M) 2025 (O&M) 2025 (O&M) this unsubstantiated statement raises serious doubts about the fairness and objectivity of the investigation. It is not in dispute that the petitioner wa present at the spot. The veracity and weightage required to be attached to the disclosure statement made by the co-accused will be fully tested at the time of trial. The rival contentions raised at Bar give rise to debatable issues shall be ted 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. At this juncture, it would be apposite to refer to a judgment passed by this Court in Anshul Sardana versus State of Punjab Anshul Sardana versus State of Punjab Anshul Sardana versus State of Punjab Anshul Sardana versus State of Punjab (2025: PHHC:004198), wherein, after relying upon the of the judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Tofan Singh versus State of Tamil Nadu, AIR 2020 Supreme Court 5592; Smt. Najmunisha, Abdul Hamid Chandmiya @ Ladoo Bapu versus State of Gujrat, Narco Control Bureau, 2024 INSC 290; State by (NCB) Bengaluru vs. Pallulabid Ahmad Arimutta & Anr.’, 2022 (1) RCR (Criminal) 762; and Vijay Singh vs. The State of Haryana, bearing Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No.(s) 1266/2023, decided on 17.05.2023, has held thus: “6.3 It is a well established principle of law that a confession made by a co-accused under Section 67 of the NDPS Act is inherently a very weak piece of evidence. Such statement(s), by themselves, cannot form the sole basis for the conviction of an individual scrutinized with utmost caution in conjunction with other substantive evidence. Moreover, no recovery has been effected from the possession of the petitioner, who has been subsequently implicated as an accused solely on the basis of disclosure statement of the co regular bail pertains to life and liberty of individual, Courts are obligated 3333 this unsubstantiated statement raises serious doubts about the fairness and objectivity of the investigation. It is not in dispute that the petitioner was not present at the spot. The veracity and weightage required to be attached to the accused will be fully tested at the time of trial. The rival contentions raised at Bar give rise to debatable issues shall be ted 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 absconding from the process of justice or interfering At this juncture, it would be apposite to refer to a judgment passed Anshul Sardana versus State of Punjab Anshul Sardana versus State of Punjab Anshul Sardana versus State of Punjab Anshul Sardana versus State of Punjab, passed in CRM CRM CRM CRM----M M M M---- , wherein, after relying upon the ratio of the judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Tofan Singh versus State of Tamil Nadu, AIR 2020 Supreme Court 5592; Smt. Najmunisha, Abdul Hamid Chandmiya @ Ladoo Bapu versus State of Gujrat, Narcotics Control Bureau, 2024 INSC 290; State by (NCB) Bengaluru vs. Pallulabid Ahmad Arimutta & Anr.’, 2022 (1) RCR (Criminal) 762; and Vijay Singh vs. The State of Haryana, bearing Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No.(s) eld thus: It is a well established principle of law that a confession accused under Section 67 of the NDPS Act is inherently a very weak piece of evidence. Such statement(s), by themselves, cannot form the sole basis for the conviction of an individual and must be scrutinized with utmost caution in conjunction with other substantive evidence. Moreover, no recovery has been effected from the possession of the petitioner, who has been subsequently implicated as an accused solely statement of the co-accused. However, as regular bail pertains to life and liberty of individual, Courts are obligated 3333 this unsubstantiated statement raises serious doubts about the fairness and s not present at the spot. The veracity and weightage required to be attached to the accused will be fully tested at the time of trial. The rival contentions raised at Bar give rise to debatable issues shall be ted 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 absconding from the process of justice or interfering At this juncture, it would be apposite to refer to a judgment passed ---- ratio of the judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Tofan Singh versus State of Tamil Nadu, AIR 2020 Supreme Court 5592; Smt. Najmunisha, tics Control Bureau, 2024 INSC 290; State by (NCB) Bengaluru vs. Pallulabid Ahmad Arimutta & Anr.’, 2022 (1) RCR (Criminal) 762; and Vijay Singh vs. The State of Haryana, bearing Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No.(s) It is a well established principle of law that a confession accused under Section 67 of the NDPS Act is inherently a very weak piece of evidence. Such statement(s), by themselves, cannot and must be scrutinized with utmost caution in conjunction with other substantive evidence. Moreover, no recovery has been effected from the possession of the petitioner, who has been subsequently implicated as an accused solely accused. However, as regular bail pertains to life and liberty of individual, Courts are obligated MAHAVIR SINGH 2025.08.11 17:23 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/ judgment CRM CRM CRM CRM----M M M M----6636 6636 6636 6636----2025 (O&M) 2025 (O&M) 2025 (O&M) 2025 (O&M) principles of law. However, while petitioner has been arraigned or implicated, including the nature of the 6.2. petitioner to secure regular bail. The last bail plea preferred by the petitioner was dismissed of the petitioner for a period of mo progress in trial, this Court is inclined to favourably consider the instant plea for bail. A profitable reference, in this regard, can be made to a judgment of this Court passed in Haryana and another Haryana and another Haryana and another Haryana and another principles emerge: 2025 (O&M) 2025 (O&M) 2025 (O&M) 2025 (O&M) to strike a balance between safeguarding personal liberty and ensuring the effective administration of justice as also investigation. Th evidentiary value and admissibility of the disclosure statement made by a co-accused fall within the domain of the trial Court and are to be adjudicated during the course of the trial in accordance with established principles of law. However, while adjudicating a plea for regular bail, this Court cannot remain oblivious to the circumstances under which the petitioner has been arraigned or implicated, including the nature of the allegations, the evidence linking the petitioner to the offence as well specific role attributed to the petitioner in the commission of the alleged offence. A prima facie examination of these factors is essential to ensure that the process of law is not misused, abused or misdirected. Indubitably, the present petition is the petitioner to secure regular bail. The last bail plea preferred by the petitioner was dismissed on 21.11.2024. However, keeping in view further incarceration of the petitioner for a period of more than progress in trial, this Court is inclined to favourably consider the instant plea for bail. A profitable reference, in this regard, can be made to a judgment of this Court passed in CRA CRA CRA CRA----SSSS----2332 2332 2332 2332----2023 2023 2023 2023 titled as Haryana and another Haryana and another Haryana and another Haryana and another; relevant whereof reads as under: “10. As an epilogue to the above discussion, the following principles emerge: I Second/successive regular bail petition(s) filed is maintainable in law & hence such petition ought not to be solely on the ground of maintainability thereof. II. Such second/successive regular bail petition(s) is maintainable whether earlier petition was dismissed as withdrawn/dismissed as not pressed/dismissed for non or earlier petition was dismissed on merits. III For the second/successive regular bail petition(s) to succeed, the petitioner/applicant shall be essentially/pertinently required to show substantial change in circumstances and showing of a mere superficial or ostensible cha metaphoric expression of seeking second/successive bail plea(s) ought not be abstracted into literal iterations of petition(s) without substantial, effective and consequential change in circumstances. IV No exhaustive guidelin what would constitute substantial change in circumstances as every case has its own unique facts/circumstance. Making such an 4444 to strike a balance between safeguarding personal liberty and ensuring the effective administration of justice as also investigation. The final evidentiary value and admissibility of the disclosure statement made by a accused fall within the domain of the trial Court and are to be adjudicated during the course of the trial in accordance with established adjudicating a plea for regular bail, this Court cannot remain oblivious to the circumstances under which the petitioner has been arraigned or implicated, including the nature of the allegations, the evidence linking the petitioner to the offence as well as the specific role attributed to the petitioner in the commission of the alleged offence. A prima facie examination of these factors is essential to ensure that the process of law is not misused, abused or misdirected.” Indubitably, the present petition is the third attempt by the petitioner to secure regular bail. The last bail plea preferred by the petitioner . However, keeping in view further incarceration re than 08 months and no substantial progress in trial, this Court is inclined to favourably consider the instant plea for bail. A profitable reference, in this regard, can be made to a judgment of titled as Rafiq Khan versus Rafiq Khan versus Rafiq Khan versus Rafiq Khan versus State of State of State of State of ; relevant whereof reads as under: As an epilogue to the above discussion, the following Second/successive regular bail petition(s) filed is maintainable in law & hence such petition ought not to be rejected solely on the ground of maintainability thereof. Such second/successive regular bail petition(s) is maintainable whether earlier petition was dismissed as withdrawn/dismissed as not pressed/dismissed for non-prosecution as dismissed on merits. For the second/successive regular bail petition(s) to succeed, the petitioner/applicant shall be essentially/pertinently required to show substantial change in circumstances and showing of a mere superficial or ostensible change would not suffice. The metaphoric expression of seeking second/successive bail plea(s) ought not be abstracted into literal iterations of petition(s) without substantial, effective and consequential change in circumstances. No exhaustive guidelines can possibly be laid down as to what would constitute substantial change in circumstances as every case has its own unique facts/circumstance. Making such an 4444 to strike a balance between safeguarding personal liberty and ensuring the e final evidentiary value and admissibility of the disclosure statement made by a accused fall within the domain of the trial Court and are to be adjudicated during the course of the trial in accordance with established adjudicating a plea for regular bail, this Court cannot remain oblivious to the circumstances under which the petitioner has been arraigned or implicated, including the nature of the as the specific role attributed to the petitioner in the commission of the alleged offence. A prima facie examination of these factors is essential to ensure attempt by the petitioner to secure regular bail. The last bail plea preferred by the petitioner . However, keeping in view further incarceration l progress in trial, this Court is inclined to favourably consider the instant plea for bail. A profitable reference, in this regard, can be made to a judgment of State of State of State of State of As an epilogue to the above discussion, the following Second/successive regular bail petition(s) filed is rejected Such second/successive regular bail petition(s) is maintainable whether earlier petition was dismissed as prosecution For the second/successive regular bail petition(s) to succeed, the petitioner/applicant shall be essentially/pertinently required to show substantial change in circumstances and showing nge would not suffice. The metaphoric expression of seeking second/successive bail plea(s) ought not be abstracted into literal iterations of petition(s) without es can possibly be laid down as to what would constitute substantial change in circumstances as every case has its own unique facts/circumstance. Making such an MAHAVIR SINGH 2025.08.11 17:23 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/ judgment CRM CRM CRM CRM----M M M M----6636 6636 6636 6636----2025 (O&M) 2025 (O&M) 2025 (O&M) 2025 (O&M) 6.3. forth by the petitioner, thereof cannot be 08.08.2025 filed by the learned State counsel, the petitioner has already suffered incarceration for a period of view of the matter, the rigor imposed under Section 37 of the NDPS Act diluted in light of the Article 6.4. Punjab Punjab Punjab Punjab passed in upon the ratio Hussainara Khatoon vs. Home Secy., State of Bihar (1980) 1 SCC 81; Abdul Rehman Antulay vs R.S. Nayak (1992) 1 SCC 225; Javed Gulam Nabi Shaikh vs. State of Maharashtra and another, 2024(3) RCR (Criminal) 494; Mohd Muslim @ Hussain vs. State (NCT of Delhi) Criminal Appeal No.245/2020 dated 07.02.2020 titled as “Chitta Biswas Alias Subhas vs. The State of West Bengal”; “Nitish Adhikary @ Bapan vs. The State of West Bengal”, Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No.5530 22.08.2022 titled as “Mohammad Salman Hanif Shaikh vs. The State of Gujarat”; Criminal Appeal No.1169 of 2022 dated 05.08.2022 titled as Gopal 2025 (O&M) 2025 (O&M) 2025 (O&M) 2025 (O&M) attempt is nothing but an utopian endeavour. Ergo, this issue is best left to the judicial wisdom and discretion of the Court dealing with such second/successive regular bail petition(s). V In case a Court chooses to grant second/successive regular bail petition(s), cogent and lucid reasons are pertinently required to be recorded for granting suc second/successive petition(s). In other words, the cause for a Court having successfully countenanced/entertained such second/successive petition(s) ought to be readily and clearly decipherable from the said order passed. A perusal of the zimni orders passed by the forth by the petitioner, indicates that the trial is thereof cannot be saddled upon the petitioner. 2025 filed by the learned State counsel, the petitioner has already suffered incarceration for a period of 01 year view of the matter, the rigor imposed under Section 37 of the NDPS Act diluted in light of the Article 21 of the Constitution of India. This Court in a judgment titled as passed in CRM CRM CRM CRM----M M M M----64074 64074 64074 64074----2024 2024 2024 2024 (2025:PHHC:002695); after relying ratio decidendi of the judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Hussainara Khatoon vs. Home Secy., State of Bihar (1980) 1 SCC 81; Abdul Rehman Antulay vs R.S. Nayak (1992) 1 SCC 225; Javed Gulam Nabi Shaikh vs. State of Maharashtra and another, 2024(3) RCR (Criminal) 494; Mohd Muslim @ Hussain vs. State (NCT of Delhi) Criminal Appeal No.245/2020 dated 07.02.2020 titled as “Chitta Biswas Alias Subhas vs. The State of West Bengal”; “Nitish Adhikary @ Bapan vs. The State of West Bengal”, Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No.5530 22 titled as “Mohammad Salman Hanif Shaikh vs. The State of Gujarat”; Criminal Appeal No.1169 of 2022 dated 05.08.2022 titled as Gopal 5555 attempt is nothing but an utopian endeavour. Ergo, this issue is dom and discretion of the Court dealing with such second/successive regular bail petition(s). In case a Court chooses to grant second/successive regular bail petition(s), cogent and lucid reasons are pertinently required to be recorded for granting such plea despite such a plea being second/successive petition(s). In other words, the cause for a Court having successfully countenanced/entertained such second/successive petition(s) ought to be readily and clearly decipherable from the said order passed.” orders passed by the trial Court, brought indicates that the trial is indeed procrastinating and folly upon the petitioner. As per custody certificate dated 2025 filed by the learned State counsel, the petitioner has already year, 08 months and 24 days. In this view of the matter, the rigor imposed under Section 37 of the NDPS Act stands 21 of the Constitution of India. This Court in a judgment titled as Kulwinder versus State of Kulwinder versus State of Kulwinder versus State of Kulwinder versus State of (2025:PHHC:002695); after relying of the judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Hussainara Khatoon vs. Home Secy., State of Bihar (1980) 1 SCC 81; Abdul Rehman Antulay vs R.S. Nayak (1992) 1 SCC 225; Javed Gulam Nabi Shaikh vs. State of Maharashtra and another, 2024(3) RCR (Criminal) 494; Mohd Muslim @ Hussain vs. State (NCT of Delhi) reported as 2023 INSC 311; Criminal Appeal No.245/2020 dated 07.02.2020 titled as “Chitta Biswas Alias Subhas vs. The State of West Bengal”; “Nitish Adhikary @ Bapan vs. The State of West Bengal”, Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No.5530-2022 dated 22 titled as “Mohammad Salman Hanif Shaikh vs. The State of Gujarat”; Criminal Appeal No.1169 of 2022 dated 05.08.2022 titled as Gopal 5555 attempt is nothing but an utopian endeavour. Ergo, this issue is dom and discretion of the Court dealing In case a Court chooses to grant second/successive regular bail petition(s), cogent and lucid reasons are pertinently required to h plea despite such a plea being second/successive petition(s). In other words, the cause for a Court having successfully countenanced/entertained such second/successive petition(s) ought to be readily and clearly brought folly As per custody certificate dated 2025 filed by the learned State counsel, the petitioner has already In this stands Kulwinder versus State of Kulwinder versus State of Kulwinder versus State of Kulwinder versus State of (2025:PHHC:002695); after relying of the judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Hussainara Khatoon vs. Home Secy., State of Bihar (1980) 1 SCC 81; Abdul Rehman Antulay vs R.S. Nayak (1992) 1 SCC 225; Javed Gulam Nabi Shaikh vs. State of Maharashtra and another, 2024(3) RCR (Criminal) 494; Mohd reported as 2023 INSC 311; Criminal Appeal No.245/2020 dated 07.02.2020 titled as “Chitta Biswas Alias Subhas vs. The State of West Bengal”; “Nitish Adhikary @ Bapan vs. The 2022 dated 22 titled as “Mohammad Salman Hanif Shaikh vs. The State of Gujarat”; Criminal Appeal No.1169 of 2022 dated 05.08.2022 titled as Gopal MAHAVIR SINGH 2025.08.11 17:23 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/ judgment CRM CRM CRM CRM----M M M M----6636 6636 6636 6636----2025 (O&M) 2025 (O&M) 2025 (O&M) 2025 (O&M) Krishna Patra @ Gopalrusma vs. Union of India, and Ankur Chaudhary vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, 2024(4) RCR (Criminal) 17 prejudice that may result due to impermissible and avoidable delay since pressure on the prosecution and the Police, indubitably keeps the entire proceed with the trial with a reasonable dispatch. The guarantee serves a public suspicion due to unresolved criminal charges and lastly, it protects passage of time, thus, impairing the prosecutor and after havi 2025 (O&M) 2025 (O&M) 2025 (O&M) 2025 (O&M) Krishna Patra @ Gopalrusma vs. Union of India, and Ankur Chaudhary vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, 2024(4) RCR (Criminal) 17 “7.8. The right to a speedy and expeditious trial is not only a vital safeguard to prevent undue and oppressive incarceration; to mitigate anxiety and concern accompanying the accusation as well as to curtail any impairment in the ability of an accused to defend himself, but there is an overarching societal interest paving way for a speedy trial. This right has been repeatedly actuated in the recent past and the ratio decidendi of the above-referred to Supreme Court’s judgments have lai decisions opening up new vistas of fundamental rights. The concept of speedy trial is amalgamated into the Article 21 as an essential part of the fundamental right to life and liberty, guaranteed and preserved under our Constitution. The right to speedy trial begins with the actual restraint imposed at the time of the arrest of the accused and consequent incarceration which continues at all stages, namely, the stage of investigation, inquiry, trial, appeal and revision so that any possi prejudice that may result due to impermissible and avoidable delay since the time of the commission of the offence till the criminal proceedings consummate into a finality, could be averted. The speedy trial, early hearing and quick disposal are sine qua non overcrowded Court-dockets, the heavy volume of work and the resultant pressure on the prosecution and the Police, indubitably keeps the entire criminal jurisprudential mechanism under stress and strain. However, this cannot be an excuse for keeping the sword of Damocles hanging on the accused for an indefinite period of time. It does not serve any credit to the criminal justice system, rather it makes for a sad state of affairs. The guarantee of a speedy trial is intended to avoid oppression and prevent delay by imposing on the Court and the prosecution an obligation to proceed with the trial with a reasonable dispatch. The guarantee serves a threefold purpose. Firstly, it protects the accused against oppressive pre trial imprisonment; secondly, it relieves the accused of the anxiety and public suspicion due to unresolved criminal charges and lastly, it protects against the risk that evidence will be lost or memories dimmed by the passage of time, thus, impairing the himself. It goes without saying that the consequences of pre are grave. Accused, presumed innocent, till proven otherwise, are subjected to psychological and physical deprivations of jail under onerous conditions. Equally important, the burden of detention of such an accused frequently falls heavily on the innocent members of his family. There is yet another aspect of the matter which deserves consideration at this stage. The allegations in the present case relate to accused being involved in an FIR relating to commercial quantity of contraband under the NDPS Act, 1985. While considering in a case involving commercial quantity, the Court has to keep in mind the rigours enumerated under Section 37 of NDPS Act, 1985 which mandates that Courts can grant bail to an accused only after hearing the public prosecutor and after having satisfied itself of twin conditions which are reasonable grounds for believing that the accused is not guilty of the offence charged/alleged and that, he is not likely to commit any offence 6666 Krishna Patra @ Gopalrusma vs. Union of India, and Ankur Chaudhary vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, 2024(4) RCR (Criminal) 172; has held, thus: The right to a speedy and expeditious trial is not only a vital safeguard to prevent undue and oppressive incarceration; to mitigate anxiety and concern accompanying the accusation as well as to curtail any ity of an accused to defend himself, but there is an overarching societal interest paving way for a speedy trial. This right has been repeatedly actuated in the recent past and the ratio decidendi of the referred to Supreme Court’s judgments have laid down a series of decisions opening up new vistas of fundamental rights. The concept of speedy trial is amalgamated into the Article 21 as an essential part of the fundamental right to life and liberty, guaranteed and preserved under our he right to speedy trial begins with the actual restraint imposed at the time of the arrest of the accused and consequent incarceration which continues at all stages, namely, the stage of investigation, inquiry, trial, appeal and revision so that any possible prejudice that may result due to impermissible and avoidable delay since the time of the commission of the offence till the criminal proceedings consummate into a finality, could be averted. The speedy trial, early qua non of criminal jurisprudence. The dockets, the heavy volume of work and the resultant pressure on the prosecution and the Police, indubitably keeps the entire criminal jurisprudential mechanism under stress and strain. However, this cannot be an excuse for keeping the sword of Damocles hanging on the accused for an indefinite period of time. It does not serve any credit to the criminal justice system, rather it makes for a sad state of affairs. The ended to avoid oppression and prevent delay by imposing on the Court and the prosecution an obligation to proceed with the trial with a reasonable dispatch. The guarantee serves a threefold purpose. Firstly, it protects the accused against oppressive pre- trial imprisonment; secondly, it relieves the accused of the anxiety and public suspicion due to unresolved criminal charges and lastly, it protects against the risk that evidence will be lost or memories dimmed by the passage of time, thus, impairing the ability of the accused to defend himself. It goes without saying that the consequences of pre-trial detention are grave. Accused, presumed innocent, till proven otherwise, are subjected to psychological and physical deprivations of jail-life, usually onerous conditions. Equally important, the burden of detention of such an accused frequently falls heavily on the innocent members of his There is yet another aspect of the matter which deserves consideration at this stage. The allegations in the present case relate to accused being involved in an FIR relating to commercial quantity of contraband under the NDPS Act, 1985. While considering a bail petition in a case involving commercial quantity, the Court has to keep in mind the rigours enumerated under Section 37 of NDPS Act, 1985 which mandates that Courts can grant bail to an accused only after hearing the public ng satisfied itself of twin conditions which are reasonable grounds for believing that the accused is not guilty of the offence charged/alleged and that, he is not likely to commit any offence 6666 Krishna Patra @ Gopalrusma vs. Union of India, and Ankur Chaudhary vs. The right to a speedy and expeditious trial is not only a vital safeguard to prevent undue and oppressive incarceration; to mitigate anxiety and concern accompanying the accusation as well as to curtail any ity of an accused to defend himself, but there is an overarching societal interest paving way for a speedy trial. This right has been repeatedly actuated in the recent past and the ratio decidendi of the d down a series of decisions opening up new vistas of fundamental rights. The concept of speedy trial is amalgamated into the Article 21 as an essential part of the fundamental right to life and liberty, guaranteed and preserved under our he right to speedy trial begins with the actual restraint imposed at the time of the arrest of the accused and consequent incarceration which continues at all stages, namely, the stage of ble prejudice that may result due to impermissible and avoidable delay since the time of the commission of the offence till the criminal proceedings consummate into a finality, could be averted. The speedy trial, early of criminal jurisprudence. The dockets, the heavy volume of work and the resultant pressure on the prosecution and the Police, indubitably keeps the entire criminal jurisprudential mechanism under stress and strain. However, this cannot be an excuse for keeping the sword of Damocles hanging on the accused for an indefinite period of time. It does not serve any credit to the criminal justice system, rather it makes for a sad state of affairs. The ended to avoid oppression and prevent delay by imposing on the Court and the prosecution an obligation to proceed with the trial with a reasonable dispatch. The guarantee serves a - trial imprisonment; secondly, it relieves the accused of the anxiety and public suspicion due to unresolved criminal charges and lastly, it protects against the risk that evidence will be lost or memories dimmed by the ability of the accused to defend trial detention are grave. Accused, presumed innocent, till proven otherwise, are life, usually onerous conditions. Equally important, the burden of detention of such an accused frequently falls heavily on the innocent members of his There is yet another aspect of the matter which deserves consideration at this stage. The allegations in the present case relate to accused being involved in an FIR relating to commercial quantity of a bail petition in a case involving commercial quantity, the Court has to keep in mind the rigours enumerated under Section 37 of NDPS Act, 1985 which mandates that Courts can grant bail to an accused only after hearing the public ng satisfied itself of twin conditions which are reasonable grounds for believing that the accused is not guilty of the offence charged/alleged and that, he is not likely to commit any offence MAHAVIR SINGH 2025.08.11 17:23 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/ judgment CRM CRM CRM CRM----M M M M----6636 6636 6636 6636----2025 (O&M) 2025 (O&M) 2025 (O&M) 2025 (O&M) particularly where such de justified at the end of the prosecution by cogent reasons. An individual petition in a case governed by the rigours of Section 37 of the NDPS Act, 6.5. to be involved in sufficient by itself, to decline the concession of regular ba the FIR in question when a case is made out for grant of regular bail FIR in question by ratiocinating upon the facts/circumstances of the said FIR. Reliance in this regard can be placed upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in 2012 (1) RCR (Criminal) 586 2012 (1) RCR (Criminal) 586 2012 (1) RCR (Criminal) 586 2012 (1) RCR (Criminal) 586 Calcutta High Court in case of 477 477 477 477 & judgments of this Court in CRM 2025 (O&M) 2025 (O&M) 2025 (O&M) 2025 (O&M) while on bail. The stringent rigours of Section 37 of the NDPS must be meticulously scrutinized against the backdrop of accused’s fundamental right to a speedy trial. The right to life and personal liberty cannot be rendered nugatory by unwarranted delays in the judicial process, particularly where such delay(s) is neither attributable to the accused nor justified at the end of the prosecution by cogent reasons. An individual cannot be kept behind bars for an inordinate period of time by taking refuge in rigours laid down in Section 37 of the NDPS Act, 1985 legislature in its wisdom, in order to ensure speedy and timely disposal of the cases under the Act, has provided for the constitution of special Courts under Section 36-A of the Act. However, this Court cannot turn eye to the protracted delays and systematic inefficiency that frustrate this legislative purpose. A Court of law is duty not become complicit in violation of an individual’s fundamental rights, notwithstanding anything contained in a statute. While dealing with bail petition in a case governed by the rigours of Section 37 of the NDPS Act, 1985, the Court must strike a judicious balance between the legislative intent to curb the menace of drugs and the sacrosanct right of the accu to a fair and expeditious trial. Prolonged incarceration, without justifiable cause, risks transforming pre-trial detention into punitive imprisonment, an outcome antithetical to the principle of justice and equity. Ergo, the unequivocal inference failed to conclude within a reasonable time, resulting in prolonged incarceration, it militates against the precious fundamental rights of life and liberty granted under the law and, as such, conditional liberty overriding the statutory embargo created under Section 37 of the NDPS Act, 1985 ought to be considered as per facts of a given case. In other words, grant of bail in a case pertaining to commercial quantity, on the ground of undue delay in trial, cannot be said to be fe of the NDPS Act, 1985.” Further, as per the said custody certificate the petitioner is stated to be involved in 03 more cases. However, this factum cannot be a ground sufficient by itself, to decline the concession of regular ba the FIR in question when a case is made out for grant of regular bail FIR in question by ratiocinating upon the facts/circumstances of the said FIR. Reliance in this regard can be placed upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Maulana Mohd. Amir Rashadi v. State of U.P. and another, Maulana Mohd. Amir Rashadi v. State of U.P. and another, Maulana Mohd. Amir Rashadi v. State of U.P. and another, Maulana Mohd. Amir Rashadi v. State of U.P. and another, 2012 (1) RCR (Criminal) 586 2012 (1) RCR (Criminal) 586 2012 (1) RCR (Criminal) 586 2012 (1) RCR (Criminal) 586; a Division Bench judgment of the Hon’ble Calcutta High Court in case of Sridhar Das v. State, 1998 (2) RCR (Criminal) Sridhar Das v. State, 1998 (2) RCR (Criminal) Sridhar Das v. State, 1998 (2) RCR (Criminal) Sridhar Das v. State, 1998 (2) RCR (Criminal) & judgments of this Court in CRM-M No.38822 7777 while on bail. The stringent rigours of Section 37 of the NDPS Act, 1985 must be meticulously scrutinized against the backdrop of accused’s fundamental right to a speedy trial. The right to life and personal liberty cannot be rendered nugatory by unwarranted delays in the judicial process, lay(s) is neither attributable to the accused nor justified at the end of the prosecution by cogent reasons. An individual cannot be kept behind bars for an inordinate period of time by taking refuge in rigours laid down in Section 37 of the NDPS Act, 1985. The legislature in its wisdom, in order to ensure speedy and timely disposal of the cases under the Act, has provided for the constitution of special Courts A of the Act. However, this Court cannot turn Nelson’s to the protracted delays and systematic inefficiency that frustrate this legislative purpose. A Court of law is duty-bound to ensure that it does not become complicit in violation of an individual’s fundamental rights, in a statute. While dealing with bail petition in a case governed by the rigours of Section 37 of the NDPS Act, 1985, the Court must strike a judicious balance between the legislative intent to curb the menace of drugs and the sacrosanct right of the accused to a fair and expeditious trial. Prolonged incarceration, without justifiable trial detention into punitive imprisonment, an outcome antithetical to the principle of justice and equity. , the unequivocal inference is that where the trial has failed to conclude within a reasonable time, resulting in prolonged incarceration, it militates against the precious fundamental rights of life and liberty granted under the law and, as such, conditional liberty statutory embargo created under Section 37 of the NDPS Act, 1985 ought to be considered as per facts of a given case. In other words, grant of bail in a case pertaining to commercial quantity, on the ground of undue delay in trial, cannot be said to be fettered by Section 37 Further, as per the said custody certificate the petitioner is stated more cases. However, this factum cannot be a ground sufficient by itself, to decline the concession of regular bail to the petitioner in the FIR in question when a case is made out for grant of regular bail qua the FIR in question by ratiocinating upon the facts/circumstances of the said FIR. Reliance in this regard can be placed upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Maulana Mohd. Amir Rashadi v. State of U.P. and another, Maulana Mohd. Amir Rashadi v. State of U.P. and another, Maulana Mohd. Amir Rashadi v. State of U.P. and another, Maulana Mohd. Amir Rashadi v. State of U.P. and another, ; a Division Bench judgment of the Hon’ble Sridhar Das v. State, 1998 (2) RCR (Criminal) Sridhar Das v. State, 1998 (2) RCR (Criminal) Sridhar Das v. State, 1998 (2) RCR (Criminal) Sridhar Das v. State, 1998 (2) RCR (Criminal) M No.38822-2022 titled as Akhilesh Akhilesh Akhilesh Akhilesh 7777 Act, 1985 must be meticulously scrutinized against the backdrop of accused’s fundamental right to a speedy trial. The right to life and personal liberty cannot be rendered nugatory by unwarranted delays in the judicial process, lay(s) is neither attributable to the accused nor justified at the end of the prosecution by cogent reasons. An individual cannot be kept behind bars for an inordinate period of time by taking . The legislature in its wisdom, in order to ensure speedy and timely disposal of the cases under the Act, has provided for the constitution of special Courts Nelson’s to the protracted delays and systematic inefficiency that frustrate this bound to ensure that it does not become complicit in violation of an individual’s fundamental rights, in a statute. While dealing with bail petition in a case governed by the rigours of Section 37 of the NDPS Act, 1985, the Court must strike a judicious balance between the legislative sed to a fair and expeditious trial. Prolonged incarceration, without justifiable trial detention into punitive imprisonment, is that where the trial has failed to conclude within a reasonable time, resulting in prolonged incarceration, it militates against the precious fundamental rights of life and liberty granted under the law and, as such, conditional liberty statutory embargo created under Section 37 of the NDPS Act, 1985 ought to be considered as per facts of a given case. In other words, grant of bail in a case pertaining to commercial quantity, on the ttered by Section 37 Further, as per the said custody certificate the petitioner is stated more cases. However, this factum cannot be a ground il to the petitioner in the FIR in question by ratiocinating upon the facts/circumstances of the said FIR. Reliance in this regard can be placed upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Maulana Mohd. Amir Rashadi v. State of U.P. and another, Maulana Mohd. Amir Rashadi v. State of U.P. and another, Maulana Mohd. Amir Rashadi v. State of U.P. and another, Maulana Mohd. Amir Rashadi v. State of U.P. and another, ; a Division Bench judgment of the Hon’ble Sridhar Das v. State, 1998 (2) RCR (Criminal) Sridhar Das v. State, 1998 (2) RCR (Criminal) Sridhar Das v. State, 1998 (2) RCR (Criminal) Sridhar Das v. State, 1998 (2) RCR (Criminal) Akhilesh Akhilesh Akhilesh Akhilesh MAHAVIR SINGH 2025.08.11 17:23 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/ judgment CRM CRM CRM CRM----M M M M----6636 6636 6636 6636----2025 (O&M) 2025 (O&M) 2025 (O&M) 2025 (O&M) Singh v. State of Haryana Singh v. State of Haryana Singh v. State of Haryana Singh v. State of Haryana Haryana, 1998 (3) RCR (Criminal) 191. Haryana, 1998 (3) RCR (Criminal) 191. Haryana, 1998 (3) RCR (Criminal) 191. Haryana, 1998 (3) RCR (Criminal) 191. not warranted in the facts 7. ordered to be released on regular bail on his furnishing bail/surety bonds to the satisfaction of the Ld. concerned addition to conditions that may be imposed by the concerned Magistrate, the petitioner s 8. which may be imposed by concerned hereinabove or upon showing any other sufficient cause, the State/complainant shall be at liberty to mo 2025 (O&M) 2025 (O&M) 2025 (O&M) 2025 (O&M) Singh v. State of Haryana Singh v. State of Haryana Singh v. State of Haryana Singh v. State of Haryana, decided on 29.11.2021, and Haryana, 1998 (3) RCR (Criminal) 191. Haryana, 1998 (3) RCR (Criminal) 191. Haryana, 1998 (3) RCR (Criminal) 191. Haryana, 1998 (3) RCR (Criminal) 191. Suffice to say, further detention of the petitioner as an undertrial is not warranted in the facts and circumstances of the case. In view of above, the present petition is allowed. Petitioner is d to be released on regular bail on his furnishing bail/surety bonds to the satisfaction of the Ld. concerned trial Court addition to conditions that may be imposed by the concerned Magistrate, the petitioner shall remain bound by the following conditions: (i) The petitioner shall not mis (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 cellp Investigating Officer/SHO of concerned Police Station and shall not change his cell 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 is mandated to move, forthwith, for cancellation of his bail which plea, but of course, shall be ratiocinated upon merits In case of breach of any of the aforesaid conditions and those which may be imposed by concerned trial Court hereinabove or upon showing any other sufficient cause, the State/complainant shall be at liberty to move cancellation of bail of the petitioner. 8888 , decided on 29.11.2021, and Balraj v. Balraj v. Balraj v. Balraj v. State of State of State of State of Suffice to say, further detention of the petitioner as an undertrial is and circumstances of the case. In view of above, the present petition is allowed. Petitioner is d to be released on regular bail on his furnishing bail/surety bonds to the trial Court/Duty Magistrate. However, in addition to conditions that may be imposed by the concerned trial Court/Duty nd by the following conditions: The petitioner shall not mis-use the liberty granted. The petitioner shall not tamper with any evidence, oral or documentary, during the trial. The petitioner shall not absent himself on any date before The petitioner shall not commit any offence while on bail. The petitioner shall deposit his passport, if any, with the 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. The petitioner shall not in any manner try to delay the trial. 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 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 is mandated to move, forthwith, for cancellation of his bail which plea, but of course, shall be ratiocinated upon merits thereof. In case of breach of any of the aforesaid conditions and those trial Court/Duty Magistrate as directed hereinabove or upon showing any other sufficient cause, the State/complainant ve cancellation of bail of the petitioner. 8888 State of State of State of State of Suffice to say, further detention of the petitioner as an undertrial is In view of above, the present petition is allowed. Petitioner is d to be released on regular bail on his furnishing bail/surety bonds to the /Duty Magistrate. However, in /Duty The petitioner shall not tamper with any evidence, oral or The petitioner shall not absent himself on any date before The petitioner shall deposit his passport, if any, with the hone number to the Investigating Officer/SHO of concerned Police Station and phone number without prior 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 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 is mandated to move, forthwith, for cancellation of his bail which plea, but of In case of breach of any of the aforesaid conditions and those /Duty Magistrate as directed hereinabove or upon showing any other sufficient cause, the State/complainant MAHAVIR SINGH 2025.08.11 17:23 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/ judgment CRM CRM CRM CRM----M M M M----6636 6636 6636 6636----2025 (O&M) 2025 (O&M) 2025 (O&M) 2025 (O&M) 9. 10. opinion on the merits of the case. 11. application, if any, shall also stands disposed off. August 11, August 11, August 11, August 11, 2025 2025 2025 2025 mahavir Whether speaking/reasoned: Whether reportable: 2025 (O&M) 2025 (O&M) 2025 (O&M) 2025 (O&M) Ordered accordingly. Nothing said hereinabove shall be construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case. Since the main case has been decided, pending miscellaneous if any, shall also stands disposed off. 2025 2025 2025 2025 Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No Whether reportable: Yes/No 9999 Nothing said hereinabove shall be construed as an expression of Since the main case has been decided, pending miscellaneous if any, shall also stands disposed off. ((((SUMEET GOEL SUMEET GOEL SUMEET GOEL SUMEET GOEL)))) JUDGE JUDGE JUDGE JUDGE 9999 Nothing said hereinabove shall be construed as an expression of Since the main case has been decided, pending miscellaneous MAHAVIR SINGH 2025.08.11 17:23 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/ judgment