CRM-M-8547 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT 220 JUNAID ALIAS JUNED STATE OF CORAM: HON Present : AMAN CHAUDHARY, J. (ORAL) 1. BNSS, 2023, is for grant of regular bail to the petitioner in case FIR No.133 dated 02.09.2022, registered under Sections (Sections 420, Police Station Bahin, District Palwal. 2. custody for 1 year and about 1 month petitioner is alleged to have facil Pradesh, which was recovered from co been granted bail by this Court, vide order dated 07.07.2025 passed CRM-M-1227 8547-2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM Date of decision JUNAID ALIAS JUNED Versus STATE OF HARYANA CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE AMAN CHAUDHARY Mr. Mohd. Arshad, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Parmod Kumar, AAG, Haryana. AMAN CHAUDHARY, J. (ORAL) Prayer in the present petition filed under Section 483 BNSS, 2023, is for grant of regular bail to the petitioner in case FIR No.133 dated 02.09.2022, registered under Sections (Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 259, 260 and 263 IPC added later on), at Police Station Bahin, District Palwal. Learned counsel contends that custody for 1 year and about 1 month. He alleges false implication. petitioner is alleged to have facilitated to bring contraband from And Pradesh, which was recovered from co-accused, Shokeen, who has since been granted bail by this Court, vide order dated 07.07.2025 passed 1227-2025. No recovery has been effected from the petitioner. -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-8547-2025 (O & M) Date of decision: 22.09.2025 ....Petitioner ...Respondent BLE MR. JUSTICE AMAN CHAUDHARY Advocate, Mr. Parmod Kumar, AAG, Haryana. etition filed under Section 483 of BNSS, 2023, is for grant of regular bail to the petitioner in case FIR No.133 dated 02.09.2022, registered under Sections 20, 61, 85 NDPS Act 471, 259, 260 and 263 IPC added later on), at Learned counsel contends that the petitioner has been in He alleges false implication. The itated to bring contraband from Andhra accused, Shokeen, who has since been granted bail by this Court, vide order dated 07.07.2025 passed in No recovery has been effected from the petitioner. PARVEEN KUMAR 2025.09.22 19:20 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment. -2- CRM-M-8547-2025 16 witnesses, out of 20, still remain to be examined. He is involved in one other case under Section 307 IPC wherein he is on bail. Reliance is placed on the judgment passed by Hon'ble The Supreme Court titled as Maulana Mohd. Amir Rashadi vs. State of U.P. and others, 2012(2) SCC 382. 3. The custody certificate dated 19.09.2025, filed by the learned State counsel is taken on record. As per the same, the petitioner is behind bars for 1 year and 27 days. 4. Learned State counsel opposes the bail on the ground that the petitioner got the contraband loaded from Andhra Pradesh and air tickets have been recovered from him. However, he is unable to controvert the submissions with regard to stage of the case; the petitioner being on bail in another case and the co-accused having been enlarged on bail. 5. Heard. 6. Hon'ble The Supreme Court in the case of Maulana Mohd. Amir Rashadi (Supra)had held that, “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 jurisdiction of the Court, etc.” 7. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, in particular that the petitioner is in custody for the last 1 year and 27 days; on bail in another case; the co-accused has been granted bail; out of 20 PARVEEN KUMAR 2025.09.22 19:20 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment. -3- CRM-M-8547-2025 prosecution witnesses, only 4 have been examined; the trial is likely to take a considerable time, and further incarceration of the petitioner would be violative of his right enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, the present petition is allowed. 10. The petitioner is ordered to be released on regular bail, subject to furnishing bail/surety bonds to the satisfaction of trial Court/Duty Magistrate concerned, if not required in any other case and shall abide by the following conditions:- (i) The petitioner will not tamper with the evidence during the trial. (ii) The petitioner will not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witnesses. (iii) The petitioner will appear before the trial Court on each and every date fixed, unless is exempted by a specific order of Court. (iv) The petitioner shall not commit an offence similar to the offence of which, he is an accused, or for commission of which he is suspected of. (v) The petitioner shall not directly or indirectly coerce, induce, threaten or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him/ her from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence in any manner. (vi) The petitioner shall not in any manner misuse his liberty. (vii) The petitioner shall furnish his address and mobile number by way of an affidavit to the trial Court and not change the same till conclusion of trial and if for any reasons, he seeks to change either of the aforesaid, it shall be done only with prior information to the learned trial Court. (viii) The petitioner shall not leave the country without prior permission of the trial Court. (ix) The trial Court/Duty Magistrate may impose any other condition, as deemed appropriate while releasing the petitioner. PARVEEN KUMAR 2025.09.22 19:20 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment. -4- CRM-M-8547-2025 11. It is made abundantly clear that in case there is any breach of the aforesaid conditions, the State shall be at liberty to seek cancellation of bail as granted to the petitioner by this order. 12. In view of the above, it is clarified that the observations made herein above are limited for the purpose of present proceedings and would not be construed as any opinion on the merits of the case and the trial would proceed independently of the aforesaid observations. 22.09.2025 (AMAN CHAUDHARY) parveen kumar JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes / No Whether reportable : Yes / No PARVEEN KUMAR 2025.09.22 19:20 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment.