CRM-M-35763-2025 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 341 CRM-M-35763-2025 (O&M) Date of decision : 04.08.2025 Daler Singh ...Petitioner Versus State of Haryana ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANISHA BATRA Present:- Mr. S. S. Rangi, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Neeraj Poswal, AAG, Haryana. MANISHA BATRA, J. (Oral) 1. The instant one is the second petition that has been filed by the petitioner under Section 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for grant of regular bail in case arising out of FIR No. 139 dated 18.07.2024, registered under Section 22 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short ‘NDPS Act’) [Section 29 of the NDPS Act added later on] at Police Station Pehowa, District Kurukshetra. The previous petition, bearing CRM-M-46897-2024, was dismissed by this Court on 31.01.2025. 2. The petitioner has been arraigned as accused in the aforementioned case on the basis of the disclosure statement suffered by co- accused Daljeet Singh, who was apprehended by a police party on 18.07.2024 and recovery of 1000 tablets of Clovidol-100 and 500 tablets of Tramadol Prolonged-release containing salt of Tramadol Hydrochloride was effected from him. The allegations against the petitioner are that the recovered contraband was purchased from him. The petitioner was arrested Parveen Sharma 2025.08.05 14:08 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-35763-2025 (O&M) -2- on 19.07.2024 and since then, he is in custody. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that he has been falsely implicated in this case. He has been nominated in this case on the basis of the disclosure statement made by the co-accused, which is not admissible in evidence against him. No subsequent recovery has been effected from him. He is not involved in any other case. Even otherwise, investigation has since been completed and challan has been filed. However, no prosecution witness has been examined so far. Hence, conclusion of trial is likely to take a long time. The petitioner is in custody since 19.07.2024. No useful purpose would be served by keeping him in custody anymore. Co-accused Deepak @ Deep, Devi Dayal and Mukesh Pal have already been granted concession of regular bail by this Court, vide orders dated 09.05.2025 and 22.05.2025 passed in CRM-M-1999-2025, CRM-M-25108- 2025 and CRM-M-2735-2025. On the grounds of parity, the petitioner too deserves the same benefit. Therefore, it is urged that the petition deserves to be allowed and the petitioner deserves to be released on regular bail. 4. Reply has been filed by the respondent-State. Learned State counsel has argued that keeping in view the gravity of the allegations against the petitioner, he is not entitled to get benefit of bail. Hence, it is urged that the petition is liable to be dismissed. 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 statement suffered by co-accused. The petitioner was arrested on 19.07.2024 but no subsequent recovery is shown to have been effected Parveen Sharma 2025.08.05 14:08 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-35763-2025 (O&M) -3- from him. He is not involved in any other case and has clean antecedents. Investigation has since been completed and challan has been filed. Conclusion of trial would obviously take time as no prosecution witness has been examined so far. Above named co-accused, who were also implicated on the basis of the disclosure statements, have already been granted concession of regular bail by this Court, as mentioned above. Keeping in view the aforesaid facts and circumstances, I am of the considered opinion that no useful purpose would be served by keeping him 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. 04.08.2025 (MANISHA BATRA) WWWWaaaasssseeeeeeeemmmm AAAAnnnnssssaaaarrrriiii JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether reportable Yes/No Parveen Sharma 2025.08.05 14:08 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document