CRM-M-48994-2025 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 272 CRM-M-48994-2025 (O&M) Date of decision: 08.09.2025 Jitender Singh @ Bengali ...Petitioner Versus State of Haryana ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANISHA BATRA Present:- Ms. Harshita Kalra, Advocate for Mr. Bhim Singh, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Neeraj Poswal, AAG, Haryana. MANISHA BATRA, J. (Oral) 1. This petition has been filed by the petitioner under Section 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 seeking regular bail in case bearing FIR No. 17 dated 16.01.2025, registered under Sections 22(C) and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short ‘NDPS Act’) at Police Station Dharuhera, District Rewari. 2. Brief facts of the case relevant for the disposal of the present petition are that on 16.01.2025, co-accused Sunil Kumar was apprehended by a police party and recovery of 1728 intoxicating capsules containing Tramadol was effected from him. Since he could not produce any valid license or permit to keep in his possession the recovered drugs, he was formally arrested at the spot. Upon interrogation, he disclosed that he had purchased the recovered drugs from one Yagdutt, who after his arrest disclosed that he used to buy the intoxicating drugs from the present petitioner. On the basis of the same, the MOHAMMAD WASEEM ANSARI 2025.09.09 10:39 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-48994-2025 (O&M) -2- present petitioner was nominated in this case and was arrested on 16.01.2025. After completion of necessary investigation and usual formalities, challan was presented in the Court and presently, the petitioner along with the co-accused is facing trial for commission of aforementioned offences. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the petitioner 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 the disclosure statement suffered by the above named co-accused, who himself was nominated by accused Sunil Kumar. No subsequent recovery is shown to have been effected from him. He has clean antecedents and is not involved in any other case. Even otherwise, investigation stands completed and challan has been filed. Conclusion of trial is likely to take time. The petitioner is in custody since 16.01.2025. 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. Custody certificate of the petitioner has been filed by the respondent-State. Learned State counsel, who has advance notice of the petition and is ready to argue the matter, 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. 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. No subsequent recovery has MOHAMMAD WASEEM ANSARI 2025.09.09 10:39 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-48994-2025 (O&M) -3- been effected from him. He is not even shown to be involved in any other case. Investigation has since been completed and challan has been presented. Conclusion of trial would obviously take time. 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. 08.09.2025 (MANISHA BATRA) Waseem Ansari JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether reportable Yes/No MOHAMMAD WASEEM ANSARI 2025.09.09 10:39 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document