CRM-M-21304-2025 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Sr. No.225 Case No. : CRM-M-21304-2025 Decided On : July 10, 2025 Laxman Choudhary .... Petitioner vs. State of Haryana .... Respondent CORAM : HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE SUKHVINDER KAUR. * * * Present : Dr. Anmol Rattan Sidhu, Senior Advocate with Mr. Pratham Sethi, Advocate and Kanishk Swaroop, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Karan Garg, AAG, Haryana. * * * SUKHVINDER KAUR , J. : Prayer in the present petition, filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023 is for grant of regular bail to the petitioner, in case FIR No.445 dated 21.09.2024, under Section 17(c) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as – NDPS Act) (Section 29 of the NDPS Act added later on), registered at Police Station Civil Line Sirsa, District Sirsa. Shorn of unnecessary details, the case of the prosecution in brief is that during routine patrolling, the police nabbed one Chaina Ram and the petitioner along with 02 kilograms 682 grams of opium. On query by the police, both of them stated that the said contraband belonged to them jointly and they had bought it from one Piyush @ Pushpender, resident of District Neemuch, Madhya Pradesh. Accordingly, the FIR in question was registered MONIKA 2025.07.11 14:04 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-21304-2025 2 against them after completing all the formalities. Learned counsel for petitioner has contended that the petitioner was not in conscious possession of the contraband, allegedly recovered in the present case. Rather, this recovery was made from co-accused Chaina Ram and was effected from the bag, which he was holding in his hand. He further submitted that as such, the petitioner cannot be connected with the offence in the present case. The petitioner is in custody since long. The conclusion of trial of the case will take considerable time. No useful purpose would be served by detaining the petitioner in further custody. Learned counsel, therefore, prays that the petitioner be granted concession of regular bail. On the other hand, learned State counsel submitted that the petitioner along with his co-accused was found in possession of commercial quantity of contraband and as such, does not deserve any leniency from the Court. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the case file. As per the FIR, both the accused were standing together on the Hooda Road, who, after seeing the police vehicle, turned their faces and started walking. On suspicion, both were apprehended and they failed to assign any reason for turning back. Co-accused Chaina Ram was holding a black bag in his right hand. Thereafter, recovery of 02 kilograms 682 grams of opium was effected from the said bag. So, at this stage, it cannot be said that the petitioner was not in conscious possession of the alleged contraband when he was standing there along with co-accused Chaina Ram and both of MONIKA 2025.07.11 14:04 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-21304-2025 3 them became perplexed on seeing the police party and tried to turn back. The alleged recovery of 02 kilograms 682 grams of opium falls under the commercial quantity, which attracts the rigors of Section 37 of the NDPS Act. Accordingly, without having any bearing or expression of opinion on the merits of the case, the present petition is dismissed. July 10, 2025 (SUKHVINDER KAUR) monika JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned ? Yes/No. Whether reportable ? Yes/No. MONIKA 2025.07.11 14:04 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document