CRM-M-72374- IN THE H (249) PAWAN @ SAM STATE OF HAR CORAM: HON Present: Mr. Mr. A MANISHA BATR 1. The 483 of Bharatiya N of regular bail in under Sections 2 Substances Act (f Jind. 2. As p information the a recovery of 1.018 his conscious pos suffered disclosur been purchased by -2025 (O&M) 1 THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB A CHANDIGARH SAMUNDAR Versus
HARYANA HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANIS Som Nath Saini, Advocate for the Mr. Aditya Pal Singla, AAG, Haryana ****
BATRA, J. (ORAL)
The instant petition has been filed atiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 in case arising out of FIR No.23 ons 20B(ii) C and 29 of the Narc Act (for short “NDPS”) at Police Sta As per the allegations, on 02.08.20 the accused Sukhdev son of Pala 1.018 KG of charas was effected from us possession. He was formally ar closure statement to the effect that t sed by him from the accused-Ajay. T JAB AND HARYANA AT ARH
CRM-M-72374-2025 (O&M) Date of decision : 10.02.2026 ... Petitioner ...Respondent ANISHA BATRA
for the petitioner aryana by the petitioner under Section , 2023 (for short “BNSS”) for grant 231 dated 03.08.2024 registered Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic ice Station Sadar Narwana, District 2.08.2024 on the basis of a secret f Pala Ram was apprehended and d from a polythene bag which was in lly arrested. On interrogation, he that the recovered contraband had jay. The said accused was arrested M) 2026 oner
dent
ction grant tered ropic strict ecret and as in , he had ested AMIT SHARMA 2026.02.11 13:13 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment. CRM-M-72374- on 29.04.2024. H Sukhdev @ Ram accused-Sukhdev he had purchased arrested on 03.08. also arrested on Kumar were also a 3. It is a falsely implicated accused Sukhdev admissible in evid been effected fro investigation. His Act are not attract as no prosecution been extended be same benefit. No anymore. It is, the 4. Per c has argued that ke the petitioner, he d 5. This C for both the parties -2025 (O&M) 2 24. He too suffered disclosure stat Raman @ Chhota was nominated hdev @ Raman @ Chhota in his disc hased the contraband from the present 03.08.2025 whereas the accused Sukh d on 06.06.2025. The additional a also arrested. Investigation now stand t is argued by learned counsel for t licated in this case on the basis of di khdev @ Raman @ Chhota which in evidence. He is in custody since ed from him. He is not required n. His antecedents are clean. The rigo attracted qua him. The trial will take ution witness has been examined so fa ed benefit of bail. On parity, he too No useful purpose would be serve , therefore, argued that he deserves t Per contra, learned State counsel wh that keeping in view the gravity of the r, he does not deserve to be extended b This Court has heard the rival submis parties at considerable length. statement on the basis of which inated as additional accused. The is disclosure statement disclosed that resent petitioner. The petitioner was Sukhdev @ Raman @ Chhota was onal accused Jaswant and Parveen w stands completed. l for the petitioner that he has been s of disclosure statement of the co- which cannot be considered to be nce 03.08.2025. No recovery has quired for the purpose of further he rigors of Section 37 of the NDPS ll take considerable time to conclude d so far. The co-accused has already he too deserves to be extended the served by detaining him in custody erves to be released on bail. el while relying on the status report of the allegations as levelled against nded benefit of bail. ubmissions made by learned counsel hich The that was was veen been - o be has rther DPS lude eady d the tody eport ainst unsel AMIT SHARMA 2026.02.11 13:13 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment. CRM-M-72374- 6. It is w an application for whether there is a accused has comm accused; likelihoo accusation; severit accused abscondin of the witnesses b factor that is to b granted bail, the a Act must fulfill the 7. The c disclosed by co- statement, he had Vs. State of Tam Court that the dis inadmissible in ev veracity of the dis the course of trial was ever effected There is nothing o subject crime or manner at the rele trial would take co so far. The co- -2025 (O&M) 3 It is well settled proposition of law th on for grant of bail has to keep cert re is a prima facie case or reasonab committed the offence; circumstanc elihood of the offence being repeated severity of the punishment in the even conding or fleeing, if released on bai sses being threatened. The period of s to be considered. It is also unequi the accused charged with offence u lfill the condition stipulated in Section The case of the prosecution is that t -accused Sukhdev @ Raman @ e had sourced the contraband from t Tamil Nadu, (2021) 4 SCC 1, it wa he disclosure statements made under e in evidence unless corroborated by in the disclosure statement against the p f trial, however, at this stage, it canno ected from the petitioner. The petition hing on record, at this stage, to connec e or to show that he was connected he relevant time. Investigation has be take considerable time as no prosecuti -accused has already been grante law that the Court while considering ep certain factors in mind, such as, asonable ground to believe that the mstances which are peculiar to the peated; the nature and gravity of the e event of conviction; the danger of on bail and reasonable apprehension riod of incarceration is also relevant unequivocally established that to be ence under the provisions of NDPS ection 37 of the Act. that the name of the petitioner was an @ Chhota. As per his disclosure from the petitioner. In Tofan Singh it was observed by Hon’ble Apex under Section 67 of NDPS Act, are d by independent material. While the t the petitioner will be tested during t cannot be ignored that no recovery etitioner was arrested on 03.08.2025. connect the petitioner either with the nected with the co-accused in any has been completed. Conclusion of secution witness has been examined granted concession of bail by this ering h as, t the the f the er of sion vant to be DPS was sure gh pex t, are e the uring very 025. h the any n of ined this AMIT SHARMA 2026.02.11 13:13 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment. CRM-M-72374- Court. Keeping in the considered op petitioner in custo facts, the petition subject to his fur learned trial Court 8. It is, be construed as an and shall not influ 9. In the petitioner, it shal application seekin 10. Since any, is rendered in 10.02.2026 Amit Sharma


-2025 (O&M) 4 ing in view the aforesaid facts and c red opinion that no useful purpose wo custody anymore. Taking into cons tition is allowed and the petitioner is is furnishing personal and surety bo Court/Chief Judicial Magistrate/Duty It is, however, clarified that the obse d as an expression of opinion of this C t influence the outcome of the trial in a In the event of there being any FIR t shall be open to the respondent to seeking cancellation of bail.
Since the main petition has been all ered infructuous.
(MA Whether speaking/reasoned:- Yes 
 

and circumstances, this Court is of ose would be served by keeping the o consideration the above discussed ner is ordered to be released on bail, ety bonds to the satisfaction of the /Duty Magistrate concerned. e observations made above shall not this Court on the merits of the case ial in any manner. FIR/complaint lodged against the dent to seek redressal by filing an een allowed, pending application, if (MANISHA BATRA)
JUDGE
Yes/No
is of g the ssed bail, f the l not case t the g an n, if AMIT SHARMA 2026.02.11 13:13 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment.