CRM-M-21577-2025 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 346 CRM-M-21577-2025 (O&M) Date of decision: 02.09.2025 Imran Rana @ Mohd. Imran ...Petitioner Versus State of Haryana ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANISHA BATRA Present:- Mr. Inderjeet Singh, Advocate for the petitioner. Ms. Himani Arora, DAG, Haryana. MANISHA BATRA, J. (Oral) 1. The instant one is the second petition that has been filed by the petitioner under Section 483 of Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for grant of regular bail to him in case arising out of FIR No. 150, dated 05.07.2024, registered under Section 22(C) and 29 of the Narcotic Substances and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short ‘the Act’) at Police Station Farakpur, District Yamuna Nagar. The previous petition was dismissed as withdrawn. 2. Brief facts of the case relevant for the purpose of disposal of the present petition are that on 05.07.2024, a secret information was received to the effect that one Sukhwinder Singh, who worked in a medical store situated opposite Sukhwinder Kumar Gaba Hospital, Yamuna Nagar, was indulged in selling intoxicant capsules. In pursuance of this information, aforesaid Sukhwinder Singh was apprehended by a police party and the recovery of 1320 intoxicant capsules was effected from him. He was arrested at the spot. MOHAMMAD WASEEM ANSARI 2025.09.02 10:31 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-21577-2025 (O&M) -2- On interrogation, he recorded his disclosure statement to the effect that he had purchased the recovered intoxicant capsules from the petitioner. On the basis of this disclosure, the petitioner was nominated as an accused in this case and was arrested on 07.11.2024. After completion of necessary investigation and usual formalities, challan under was presented in the Court and presently, the petitioner is facing trial for commission of aforesaid mentioned offences. 3. It is argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that he has been falsely implicated in this case. He was neither named in the FIR nor was found at the spot. He has been nominated in this case on the basis of disclosure statement of the accused, which is not admissible in evidence against him. Subsequent to his arrest, no recovery was effected from him. The petitioner is not involved in any other case under the NDPS Act. Even otherwise, investigation stands completed and challan has been filed. Conclusion of trial is likely to take time as only 02 prosecution witnesses have been examined so far out of total 21 witnesses. The petitioner is in custody since 07.11.2024. No useful purpose would be served by keeping him in custody anymore. Therefore, it is urged that the petition deserves to be allowed and the petitioner deserves to be released on regular bail. 4. Status report along with the custody certificate of the petitioner has been filed by the respondent-State. Learned State counsel has argued that keeping in view the gravity of the allegations levelled against the petitioner, he is not entitled to get benefit of bail. It is, thus, argued that the petition is liable to be dismissed. MOHAMMAD WASEEM ANSARI 2025.09.02 10:31 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-21577-2025 (O&M) -3- 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties at considerable length and have also perused the material placed on record. 6. The petitioner has been nominated in this case on the basis of the disclosure made by above named co-accused. The petitioner was arrested on 07.11.2024 but no recovery is shown to have been effected from him. He is not even shown to be involved in any other case of similar nature. Investigation has since been completed and challan has been presented. Conclusion of trial would obviously take time as only 02 prosecution witnesses have been examined so far out of total 21 witnesses. Keeping in view the aforesaid facts and circumstances, I am of the considered opinion that no useful purpose would be served by keeping the petitioner in custody anymore. Accordingly, the present petition is allowed. The petitioner is ordered to be released on regular bail, subject to his furnishing personal/surety bonds to the satisfaction of the trial Court/Duty Magistrate concerned. However, it will be open for the prosecution to apply for cancellation of bail in case the petitioner is found involved in any other subsequent case. 7. It is made clear that any observation made herein above is only for the purpose of deciding the present petition and the same shall have no bearing on the merits of the case. 02.09.2025 (MANISHA BATRA) Waseem Ansari JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether reportable Yes/No MOHAMMAD WASEEM ANSARI 2025.09.02 10:31 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document