CRM CRM CRM CRM----M M M M----31105 31105 31105 31105---- 226 226 226 226 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 Amit Joshi State of Haryana CORAM: CORAM: CORAM: CORAM: Present: Present: Present: Present:- SUMEET GOEL SUMEET GOEL SUMEET GOEL SUMEET GOEL 1. Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short ‘BNSS’) the petitioner in case bearing FIR No offences punishable under Psychotropic Substances Sector 20, Panchkula, District Panchkula. 2. an accused of being involved in an FIR pertaining to 167 grams of 3. in custody since submitted that the mandatory provisions of the NDPS Act have not been complied with, and thus, the prosecution case suffers from inherent defects. ----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. Laghuinder Singh Sekhon, Advocate Mr. Guraziz Singh Dhillon, Advocate Mr. Deepak Kumar Grewal, DAG Haryana. ***** ***** ***** ***** SUMEET GOEL SUMEET GOEL SUMEET GOEL SUMEET GOEL, J. (ORAL) , J. (ORAL) , J. (ORAL) , J. (ORAL) Present petition has been filed under Section Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short ‘BNSS’) the petitioner in case bearing FIR No.26 dated ences punishable under Sections 20-C & 29 Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short ‘NDPS Act’) Sector 20, Panchkula, District Panchkula. The gravamen of the allegations against the petitioner is that he is an accused of being involved in an FIR pertaining to 167 grams of charas allegedly recovered from his possession. Learned counsel for the petitioner has in custody since 12.02.2025. Learned counsel submitted that the mandatory provisions of the NDPS Act have not been complied with, and thus, the prosecution case suffers from inherent defects. 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----31105 31105 31105 31105----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 07 August 07 August 07 August 07, 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 and Mr. Guraziz Singh Dhillon, Advocate for the petitioner. DAG Haryana. Present petition has been filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short ‘BNSS’) for grant of regular bail to dated 12.02.2025, registered for the C & 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and (for short ‘NDPS Act’), at Police Station 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 1 kg allegedly recovered from his possession. 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 complied with, and thus, the prosecution case suffers from inherent defects. 1111 2025 (O&M) 2025 (O&M) 2025 (O&M) 2025 (O&M) , 2025 , 2025 , 2025 , 2025 Petitioner ….Respondent the Bharatiya for grant of regular bail to registered for the Narcotic Drugs and at Police Station The gravamen of the allegations against the petitioner is that he is 1 kg that the petitioner is has further submitted that the mandatory provisions of the NDPS Act have not been complied with, and thus, the prosecution case suffers from inherent defects. MAHAVIR SINGH 2025.08.07 17:39 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/ judgment CRM CRM CRM CRM----M M M M----31105 31105 31105 31105---- Learned counsel the FIR in question. Learned counsel has have been recovered marginally above the notification issued under the NDPS Act. Learned counsel has further that upon asking of the petitioner, the CCTV footage of Police Station Chandimandir, District Panchkula has been preserved, which effectively goes on to show the innocence of the petitioner. 4. that the allegations raised he does not deserve the concession of the regular bail has further submitted that 37 of the NDPS Act counsel seeks to place on record custody certificate dated which is taken on record. 5. the available records of the case. 6. investigation was carried out and challan was presented on 19 prosecution witnesses have been cited It is thus, indubitably that conclusion of the trial will take long dispute that the contraband recovered from the petitioner is 1 kg 167 grams of charas, which is marginally above threshold Reliance in this regard can be placed upon the ----2025 (O&M) 2025 (O&M) 2025 (O&M) 2025 (O&M) Learned counsel has argued that the petitioner has been falsely implicated into the FIR in question. Learned counsel has iterated have been recovered from the petitioner is 1 kg 167 grams of marginally above the threshold limit of non-commercial the notification issued under the NDPS Act. Learned counsel has further upon asking of the petitioner, the CCTV footage of Police Station Chandimandir, District Panchkula has been preserved, which effectively goes on to show the innocence of the petitioner. Thus, regular bail is prayed for. Learned State counsel has opposed the present petition that the allegations raised against the petitioner does not deserve the concession of the regular bail has further submitted that the instant bail plea is barred 37 of the NDPS Act, and thus, the same ought to be dismis counsel seeks to place on record custody certificate dated which is taken on record. I have heard counsel for the rival the available records of the case. The petitioner was arrested on investigation was carried out and challan was presented on prosecution witnesses have been cited, and the charges are yet to be framed It is thus, indubitably that conclusion of the trial will take long dispute that the contraband recovered from the petitioner is 1 kg 167 grams of , which is marginally above threshold limit Reliance in this regard can be placed upon the 2222 argued that the petitioner has been falsely implicated into iterated that the contraband alleged to petitioner is 1 kg 167 grams of charas, which is commercial quantity specified in the notification issued under the NDPS Act. Learned counsel has further argued upon asking of the petitioner, the CCTV footage of Police Station Chandimandir, District Panchkula has been preserved, which effectively goes Thus, regular bail is prayed for. ed the present petition by arguing against the petitioner are serious in nature and, thus, does not deserve the concession of the regular bail. Learned State counsel the instant bail plea is barred by the rigors of Section , and thus, the same ought to be dismissed. Learned State counsel seeks to place on record custody certificate dated 07.08.2025 in Court, rival parties and have gone through The petitioner was arrested on 12.02.2025 whereinafter investigation was carried out and challan was presented on 14.07.2025. Total and the charges are yet to be framed. It is thus, indubitably that conclusion of the trial will take long. It is not in dispute that the contraband recovered from the petitioner is 1 kg 167 grams of limit of non-commercial quantity. Reliance in this regard can be placed upon the orders passed by this Court in 2222 argued that the petitioner has been falsely implicated into the contraband alleged to , which is specified in argued upon asking of the petitioner, the CCTV footage of Police Station Chandimandir, District Panchkula has been preserved, which effectively goes arguing , Learned State counsel by the rigors of Section Learned State 2025 in Court, parties and have gone through whereinafter Total . . It is not in dispute that the contraband recovered from the petitioner is 1 kg 167 grams of . orders passed by this Court in MAHAVIR SINGH 2025.08.07 17:39 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/ judgment CRM CRM CRM CRM----M M M M----31105 31105 31105 31105---- Rajdev Giri versus State of Punjab, Rajdev Giri versus State of Punjab, Rajdev Giri versus State of Punjab, Rajdev Giri versus State of Punjab, 18.09.2020; Rahish versus State of Haryana, Rahish versus State of Haryana, Rahish versus State of Haryana, Rahish versus State of Haryana, 11.11.2020; Kara Kara Kara Kara on 28.08.2019 41242-2019, decided on 27.02.2020 Punjab, Punjab, Punjab, Punjab, CRM enlarged on bail in cases where the alleged recovery was slightly more than the quantity prescribed for commercial category under the NDPS Act. contentions raised at Bar give rise to debatable issues shall be ratiocinated upo 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. 6.1. State counsel, more than 04 under Section 37 of the NDPS Act stands diluted in light of the Article 21 of the Constitution of India. petitioner is stated to be involved in 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 the said FIR. Reliance in this regard can be placed upon the judgment of the ----2025 (O&M) 2025 (O&M) 2025 (O&M) 2025 (O&M) Rajdev Giri versus State of Punjab, Rajdev Giri versus State of Punjab, Rajdev Giri versus State of Punjab, Rajdev Giri versus State of Punjab, CRM Rahish versus State of Haryana, Rahish versus State of Haryana, Rahish versus State of Haryana, Rahish versus State of Haryana, CRM Kara Kara Kara Karambir versus State of Haryana, mbir versus State of Haryana, mbir versus State of Haryana, mbir versus State of Haryana, on 28.08.2019: Jagjit Singh @ Jagga Gill versus State of Punjab, Jagjit Singh @ Jagga Gill versus State of Punjab, Jagjit Singh @ Jagga Gill versus State of Punjab, Jagjit Singh @ Jagga Gill versus State of Punjab, 2019, decided on 27.02.2020 and Baljit Kaur @ Baljito versus State of Baljit Kaur @ Baljito versus State of Baljit Kaur @ Baljito versus State of Baljit Kaur @ Baljito versus State of CRM-M-12849-2020, decided on 04.06.2020 enlarged on bail in cases where the alleged recovery was slightly more than the quantity prescribed for commercial category under the NDPS Act. contentions raised at Bar give rise to debatable issues shall be ratiocinated upo 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 ing from the process of justice or interfering with the prosecution As per custody certificate dated State counsel, the petitioner has already suffered incarceration for a period of 04 months and 03 days. In this view of the matter, the rigor imposed under Section 37 of the NDPS Act stands diluted in light of the Article 21 of the Constitution of India. Further, as per the said custody certificate the petitioner is stated to be involved in 01 more case 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 the FIR in question by ratiocinating upon the facts the said FIR. Reliance in this regard can be placed upon the judgment of the 3333 CRM-M-44898-2019, decided on CRM-M-36498-2020, decided on mbir versus State of Haryana, mbir versus State of Haryana, mbir versus State of Haryana, mbir versus State of Haryana, CRM-M-31820-2019, decided Jagjit Singh @ Jagga Gill versus State of Punjab, Jagjit Singh @ Jagga Gill versus State of Punjab, Jagjit Singh @ Jagga Gill versus State of Punjab, Jagjit Singh @ Jagga Gill versus State of Punjab, CRM-M- Baljit Kaur @ Baljito versus State of Baljit Kaur @ Baljito versus State of Baljit Kaur @ Baljito versus State of Baljit Kaur @ Baljito versus State of 2020, decided on 04.06.2020, wherein accused were enlarged on bail in cases where the alleged recovery was slightly more than the quantity prescribed for commercial category under the NDPS Act. 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 ing from the process of justice or interfering with the prosecution As per custody certificate dated 07.08.2025 filed by the learned the petitioner has already suffered incarceration for a period of In this view of the matter, the rigor imposed under Section 37 of the NDPS Act stands diluted in light of the Article 21 of Further, as per the said custody certificate the case. 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 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 3333 2019, decided on 2020, decided on 2019, decided - Baljit Kaur @ Baljito versus State of Baljit Kaur @ Baljito versus State of Baljit Kaur @ Baljito versus State of Baljit Kaur @ Baljito versus State of wherein accused were enlarged on bail in cases where the alleged recovery was slightly more than the The rival n 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 ing from the process of justice or interfering with the prosecution filed by the learned the petitioner has already suffered incarceration for a period of In this view of the matter, the rigor imposed under Section 37 of the NDPS Act stands diluted in light of the Article 21 of Further, as per the said custody certificate the 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 /circumstances of the said FIR. Reliance in this regard can be placed upon the judgment of the MAHAVIR SINGH 2025.08.07 17:39 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/ judgment CRM CRM CRM CRM----M M M M----31105 31105 31105 31105---- Hon’ble Supreme Court in another, 2012 (1) RCR (Criminal) 586 another, 2012 (1) RCR (Criminal) 586 another, 2012 (1) RCR (Criminal) 586 another, 2012 (1) RCR (Criminal) 586 Hon’ble Calcutta (Criminal) 477 (Criminal) 477 (Criminal) 477 (Criminal) 477 Akhilesh Singh v. State of Haryana Akhilesh Singh v. State of Haryana Akhilesh Singh v. State of Haryana Akhilesh Singh v. State of Haryana of Haryana, 1998 (3) RCR (Criminal) 191. of Haryana, 1998 (3) RCR (Criminal) 191. of Haryana, 1998 (3) RCR (Criminal) 191. of 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 Magistrate, the petitioner shall remain bou ----2025 (O&M) 2025 (O&M) 2025 (O&M) 2025 (O&M) Hon’ble Supreme Court in Maulana Mohd. Amir Rashadi v. State of U.P. and Maulana Mohd. Amir Rashadi v. State of U.P. and Maulana Mohd. Amir Rashadi v. State of U.P. and Maulana Mohd. Amir Rashadi v. State of U.P. and another, 2012 (1) RCR (Criminal) 586 another, 2012 (1) RCR (Criminal) 586 another, 2012 (1) RCR (Criminal) 586 another, 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 Sridhar Das v. State, 1998 (2) RCR Sridhar Das v. State, 1998 (2) RCR Sridhar Das v. State, 1998 (2) RCR (Criminal) 477 (Criminal) 477 (Criminal) 477 (Criminal) 477 & judgments of this Court in CRM Akhilesh Singh v. State of Haryana Akhilesh Singh v. State of Haryana Akhilesh Singh v. State of Haryana Akhilesh Singh v. State of Haryana, decided on 29.11.2021, and of Haryana, 1998 (3) RCR (Criminal) 191. of Haryana, 1998 (3) RCR (Criminal) 191. of Haryana, 1998 (3) RCR (Criminal) 191. of 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 ordered 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 cellphone number to the Investigating Officer/SHO of concerned Police Station and shall not change his cell permission of the trial Cour (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 invo 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 thereof. 4444 Maulana Mohd. Amir Rashadi v. State of U.P. and Maulana Mohd. Amir Rashadi v. State of U.P. and Maulana Mohd. Amir Rashadi v. State of U.P. and Maulana Mohd. Amir Rashadi v. State of U.P. and ; a Division Bench judgment of the Sridhar Das v. State, 1998 (2) RCR Sridhar Das v. State, 1998 (2) RCR Sridhar Das v. State, 1998 (2) RCR Sridhar Das v. State, 1998 (2) RCR & judgments of this Court in CRM-M No.38822-2022 titled as , decided on 29.11.2021, and Balraj v. State Balraj v. State Balraj v. State Balraj v. State ffice 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 ordered to be released on regular bail on his furnishing bail/surety bonds to the trial Court/Duty Magistrate. However, in 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. hall 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 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, rthwith, for cancellation of his bail which plea, but of course, shall be ratiocinated upon merits thereof. 4444 Maulana Mohd. Amir Rashadi v. State of U.P. and Maulana Mohd. Amir Rashadi v. State of U.P. and Maulana Mohd. Amir Rashadi v. State of U.P. and Maulana Mohd. Amir Rashadi v. State of U.P. and ; a Division Bench judgment of the Sridhar Das v. State, 1998 (2) RCR Sridhar Das v. State, 1998 (2) RCR Sridhar Das v. State, 1998 (2) RCR Sridhar Das v. State, 1998 (2) RCR 2022 titled as Balraj v. State Balraj v. State Balraj v. State Balraj v. State ffice to say, further detention of the petitioner as an undertrial is In view of above, the present petition is allowed. Petitioner is ordered 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 hall deposit his passport, if any, with the The petitioner shall give his cellphone 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, lved 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, rthwith, for cancellation of his bail which plea, but of MAHAVIR SINGH 2025.08.07 17:39 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/ judgment CRM CRM CRM CRM----M M M M----31105 31105 31105 31105---- 8. which may be imposed by concerned hereinabove or upon showing any other sufficient cause, the State/complainant shall be at liberty to move cancellation of bail of the petitioner. 9. 10. opinion on the mer 11. application, if any, shall also stands disposed off. August 07 August 07 August 07 August 07, 2025 , 2025 , 2025 , 2025 mahavir Whether speaking/reasoned: Whether reportable: ----2025 (O&M) 2025 (O&M) 2025 (O&M) 2025 (O&M) In case of breach of any of the aforesaid conditions and those which may be imposed by concerned trial Court nabove or upon showing any other sufficient cause, the State/complainant shall be at liberty to move cancellation of bail of the petitioner. 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 application, if any, shall also stands disposed off. , 2025 , 2025 , 2025 , 2025 Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No Whether reportable: Yes/No 5555 In case of breach of any of the aforesaid conditions and those trial Court/Duty Magistrate as directed nabove or upon showing any other sufficient cause, the State/complainant shall be at liberty to move cancellation of bail of the petitioner. Nothing said hereinabove shall be construed as an expression of Since the main case has been decided, pending miscellaneous application, if any, shall also stands disposed off. ((((SUMEET GOEL SUMEET GOEL SUMEET GOEL SUMEET GOEL)))) JUDGE JUDGE JUDGE JUDGE 5555 In case of breach of any of the aforesaid conditions and those /Duty Magistrate as directed nabove or upon showing any other sufficient cause, the State/complainant Nothing said hereinabove shall be construed as an expression of Since the main case has been decided, pending miscellaneous MAHAVIR SINGH 2025.08.07 17:39 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/ judgment