CRM-M-2384-2026 106 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA Parveen @ Peena Pahalwan State of Haryana CORAM : HON'BLE MS Present: Mr. Rajesh Goyal Mr. Sushil Bhardwaj, Addl. A.G Haryana MANDEEP PANNU J. 1. The present is the fi of regular bail to the petitioner in FIR No. 346 dated 05.11.2025, registered under Sections 22-C and 29 of the NDPS Act at Police Station Ram Nagar, District Karnal, arising out of the allegations levelled 2. On 05.11.2025, information was received at Police Station Ram Nagar, Karnal, on the basis of a written complaint submitted by the Jail Superintendent, District Jail, Karnal, alleging that one convict Rameshwar @ Baira, who had been released on parole for 28 days, returned to the jail on 04.11.2025 and was suspected to have brought narcotic substances concealed inside his body. Acting upon the said information, the jail authorities and police officials conducted a medical found to be under the influence of drugs and a urine test confirmed consumption of various narcotic substances. Thereafter, he was referred for CT scan, which 2026 (O&M) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH -.- CRM Date of Decision : Parveen @ Peena Pahalwan VERSUS Haryana HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MANDEEP PANNU Mr. Rajesh Goyal, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Sushil Bhardwaj, Addl. A.G Haryana -.- MANDEEP PANNU J. (Oral) The present is the first petition under Section 483 BN of regular bail to the petitioner in FIR No. 346 dated 05.11.2025, registered under C and 29 of the NDPS Act at Police Station Ram Nagar, District Karnal, arising out of the allegations levelled against the petitioner therein. On 05.11.2025, information was received at Police Station Ram Nagar, Karnal, on the basis of a written complaint submitted by the Jail Superintendent, District Jail, Karnal, alleging that one convict Rameshwar @ ho had been released on parole for 28 days, returned to the jail on 04.11.2025 and was suspected to have brought narcotic substances concealed inside his body. Acting upon the said information, the jail authorities and police officials conducted a medical examination of the said convict, during which he was found to be under the influence of drugs and a urine test confirmed consumption of various narcotic substances. Thereafter, he was referred for CT scan, which -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-2384-2026 (O&M) Date of Decision : 05.02.2026 ....Petitioner ....Respondent MANDEEP PANNU , Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Sushil Bhardwaj, Addl. A.G Haryana petition under Section 483 BNSS seeking grant of regular bail to the petitioner in FIR No. 346 dated 05.11.2025, registered under C and 29 of the NDPS Act at Police Station Ram Nagar, District against the petitioner therein. On 05.11.2025, information was received at Police Station Ram Nagar, Karnal, on the basis of a written complaint submitted by the Jail Superintendent, District Jail, Karnal, alleging that one convict Rameshwar @ ho had been released on parole for 28 days, returned to the jail on 04.11.2025 and was suspected to have brought narcotic substances concealed inside his body. Acting upon the said information, the jail authorities and police examination of the said convict, during which he was found to be under the influence of drugs and a urine test confirmed consumption of various narcotic substances. Thereafter, he was referred for CT scan, which SS seeking grant of regular bail to the petitioner in FIR No. 346 dated 05.11.2025, registered under C and 29 of the NDPS Act at Police Station Ram Nagar, District On 05.11.2025, information was received at Police Station Ram Nagar, Karnal, on the basis of a written complaint submitted by the Jail Superintendent, District Jail, Karnal, alleging that one convict Rameshwar @ ho had been released on parole for 28 days, returned to the jail on 04.11.2025 and was suspected to have brought narcotic substances concealed inside his body. Acting upon the said information, the jail authorities and police examination of the said convict, during which he was found to be under the influence of drugs and a urine test confirmed consumption of various narcotic substances. Thereafter, he was referred for CT scan, which TRIPTI SAINI 2026.02.06 09:28 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-2384-2026 revealed the presence of a foreign object in treatment, an orange from his stomach. Consequently, on the basis of the said complaint and recovery, FIR No. 346 dated 05.11.2025 under Section 22 of the NDPS Act w Police Station Ram Nagar, District Karnal, and investigation was set into motion to ascertain the nature, quantity and source of the recovered involvement of other persons. 3. Learned counsel for the been falsely implicated in the present case and his name does not find mention in the FIR. It is submitted that the petitioner has been nominated solely on the basis of the disclosure statement of the co piece of evidence and is not admissible as substantive evidence unless duly corroborated by independent material. No recovery whatsoever has been effected from the conscious possession of the petitioner and there is no material on record to connect him with the alleged contraband. The entire prosecution case, as against the petitioner, rests only on conjectures and surmises without any direct or circumstantial evidence. It is further contended that the rigo the NDPS Act are not attracted in the present case, as there is neither any recovery from the petitioner nor any other incriminating material to establish his involvement. The petitioner is in custody, investigation qua him is complete, nothing remains to be recovere serve no useful purpose, more so when he undertakes to abide by all the terms and conditions that may be imposed by this Hon’ble Court while granting the concession of regular bail. 2026 (O&M) revealed the presence of a foreign object in treatment, an orange-coloured packet containing narcotic tablets was recovered from his stomach. Consequently, on the basis of the said complaint and recovery, FIR No. 346 dated 05.11.2025 under Section 22 of the NDPS Act w Police Station Ram Nagar, District Karnal, and investigation was set into motion to ascertain the nature, quantity and source of the recovered involvement of other persons. Learned counsel for the petitioner contend been falsely implicated in the present case and his name does not find mention in the FIR. It is submitted that the petitioner has been nominated solely on the basis of the disclosure statement of the co-accused, which in the eyes piece of evidence and is not admissible as substantive evidence unless duly corroborated by independent material. No recovery whatsoever has been effected from the conscious possession of the petitioner and there is no material on record to connect him with the alleged contraband. The entire prosecution case, as against the petitioner, rests only on conjectures and surmises without any direct or circumstantial evidence. It is further contended that the rigo t are not attracted in the present case, as there is neither any recovery from the petitioner nor any other incriminating material to establish his involvement. The petitioner is in custody, investigation qua him is complete, nothing remains to be recovered from him, and his further incarceration would serve no useful purpose, more so when he undertakes to abide by all the terms and conditions that may be imposed by this Hon’ble Court while granting the concession of regular bail. -2- his stomach, and during medical coloured packet containing narcotic tablets was recovered from his stomach. Consequently, on the basis of the said complaint and recovery, FIR No. 346 dated 05.11.2025 under Section 22 of the NDPS Act was registered at Police Station Ram Nagar, District Karnal, and investigation was set into motion to ascertain the nature, quantity and source of the recovered contraband and the petitioner contends that the petitioner been falsely implicated in the present case and his name does not find mention in the FIR. It is submitted that the petitioner has been nominated solely on the basis accused, which in the eyes of law is a weak piece of evidence and is not admissible as substantive evidence unless duly corroborated by independent material. No recovery whatsoever has been effected from the conscious possession of the petitioner and there is no material on record to connect him with the alleged contraband. The entire prosecution case, as against the petitioner, rests only on conjectures and surmises without any direct or circumstantial evidence. It is further contended that the rigorous of Section 37 of t are not attracted in the present case, as there is neither any recovery from the petitioner nor any other incriminating material to establish his involvement. The petitioner is in custody, investigation qua him is complete, d from him, and his further incarceration would serve no useful purpose, more so when he undertakes to abide by all the terms and conditions that may be imposed by this Hon’ble Court while granting the his stomach, and during medical coloured packet containing narcotic tablets was recovered from his stomach. Consequently, on the basis of the said complaint and recovery, as registered at Police Station Ram Nagar, District Karnal, and investigation was set into motion to contraband and the the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case and his name does not find mention in the FIR. It is submitted that the petitioner has been nominated solely on the basis of law is a weak piece of evidence and is not admissible as substantive evidence unless duly corroborated by independent material. No recovery whatsoever has been effected from the conscious possession of the petitioner and there is no material on record to connect him with the alleged contraband. The entire prosecution case, as against the petitioner, rests only on conjectures and surmises without any direct or of Section 37 of t are not attracted in the present case, as there is neither any recovery from the petitioner nor any other incriminating material to establish his involvement. The petitioner is in custody, investigation qua him is complete, d from him, and his further incarceration would serve no useful purpose, more so when he undertakes to abide by all the terms and conditions that may be imposed by this Hon’ble Court while granting the TRIPTI SAINI 2026.02.06 09:28 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-2384-2026 4. On the other hand, the grant of regular bail by submitting that the allegations levelled against the petitioner are serious in nature. It is contended that recovery of commercial quantity of contraband has been effected from the main course of investigation, the said accused suffered a disclosure statement specifically naming the present petitioner as the supplier of the intoxicant substance. It is further argued that the investigation has revealed call detail re between the petitioner and the co continuous contact at the relevant time. The learned State counsel has further submitted that the challan has not yet been presented, the investigation is still in progress, and at this crucial stage, the release of the petitioner on bail would adversely affect the fair and effective investigation of the case. Therefore, in view of the bar contained under Section 37 of the NDPS Act, the petitioner is not entitled to the concession of regular bail. 5. This Court has heard the learned counsel for the parties and has given thoughtful consideration to the rival submissions. It is not in dispute that the present case pertains to recovery of commercial quantity of contraband, attracting the rigours of Section 37 of the NDPS Act. The contraband was recovered from the main accused, who, during interrogation, made a disclosure statement categorically stating that the present petitioner is the supplier of the intoxicants. During the course of investigation, the police have also collected material evidence in the form of call detail records, which prima facie indicate a nexus between the petitioner and the co still underway and th 2026 (O&M) On the other hand, the State has vehemently opposed the prayer for grant of regular bail by submitting that the allegations levelled against the petitioner are serious in nature. It is contended that recovery of commercial quantity of contraband has been effected from the main course of investigation, the said accused suffered a disclosure statement specifically naming the present petitioner as the supplier of the intoxicant substance. It is further argued that the investigation has revealed call detail re between the petitioner and the co-accused, which clearly establish their nexus and continuous contact at the relevant time. The learned State counsel has further submitted that the challan has not yet been presented, the investigation is still in gress, and at this crucial stage, the release of the petitioner on bail would adversely affect the fair and effective investigation of the case. Therefore, in view of the bar contained under Section 37 of the NDPS Act, the petitioner is not concession of regular bail. This Court has heard the learned counsel for the parties and has given thoughtful consideration to the rival submissions. It is not in dispute that the present case pertains to recovery of commercial quantity of contraband, attracting the rigours of Section 37 of the NDPS Act. The contraband was recovered from the main accused, who, during interrogation, made a disclosure statement categorically stating that the present petitioner is the supplier of the During the course of investigation, the police have also collected material evidence in the form of call detail records, which prima facie indicate a nexus between the petitioner and the co-accused. At this stage, the investigation is still underway and the challan has not yet been presented. -3- State has vehemently opposed the prayer for grant of regular bail by submitting that the allegations levelled against the petitioner are serious in nature. It is contended that recovery of commercial quantity of contraband has been effected from the main accused and during the course of investigation, the said accused suffered a disclosure statement specifically naming the present petitioner as the supplier of the intoxicant substance. It is further argued that the investigation has revealed call detail records accused, which clearly establish their nexus and continuous contact at the relevant time. The learned State counsel has further submitted that the challan has not yet been presented, the investigation is still in gress, and at this crucial stage, the release of the petitioner on bail would adversely affect the fair and effective investigation of the case. Therefore, in view of the bar contained under Section 37 of the NDPS Act, the petitioner is not This Court has heard the learned counsel for the parties and has given thoughtful consideration to the rival submissions. It is not in dispute that the present case pertains to recovery of commercial quantity of contraband, thereby attracting the rigours of Section 37 of the NDPS Act. The contraband was recovered from the main accused, who, during interrogation, made a disclosure statement categorically stating that the present petitioner is the supplier of the During the course of investigation, the police have also collected material evidence in the form of call detail records, which prima facie indicate a accused. At this stage, the investigation is e challan has not yet been presented. State has vehemently opposed the prayer for grant of regular bail by submitting that the allegations levelled against the petitioner are serious in nature. It is contended that recovery of commercial accused and during the course of investigation, the said accused suffered a disclosure statement specifically naming the present petitioner as the supplier of the intoxicant cords accused, which clearly establish their nexus and continuous contact at the relevant time. The learned State counsel has further submitted that the challan has not yet been presented, the investigation is still in gress, and at this crucial stage, the release of the petitioner on bail would adversely affect the fair and effective investigation of the case. Therefore, in view of the bar contained under Section 37 of the NDPS Act, the petitioner is not This Court has heard the learned counsel for the parties and has given thoughtful consideration to the rival submissions. It is not in dispute that the thereby attracting the rigours of Section 37 of the NDPS Act. The contraband was recovered from the main accused, who, during interrogation, made a disclosure statement categorically stating that the present petitioner is the supplier of the During the course of investigation, the police have also collected material evidence in the form of call detail records, which prima facie indicate a accused. At this stage, the investigation is TRIPTI SAINI 2026.02.06 09:28 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-2384-2026 6. Considering the gravity of the offence, the nature of allegations, the commercial quantity involved, and the material collected during investigation connecting the petitioner with the alleged offence, this Court i opinion that no ground for grant of regular bail is made out. Consequently, the present petition is dismissed. 7. All pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, stands disposed of. February 05, 202 tripti Whether speaking/non Whether reportable 2026 (O&M) Considering the gravity of the offence, the nature of allegations, the commercial quantity involved, and the material collected during investigation connecting the petitioner with the alleged offence, this Court i opinion that no ground for grant of regular bail is made out. Consequently, the present petition is dismissed. All pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, stands disposed of. , 2026 Whether speaking/non-speaking : Speaking Whether reportable : Yes/No -4- Considering the gravity of the offence, the nature of allegations, the commercial quantity involved, and the material collected during investigation connecting the petitioner with the alleged offence, this Court is of the considered opinion that no ground for grant of regular bail is made out. Consequently, the All pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, stands disposed of. (MANDEEP PANNU) JUDGE : Speaking : Yes/No Considering the gravity of the offence, the nature of allegations, the commercial quantity involved, and the material collected during investigation s of the considered opinion that no ground for grant of regular bail is made out. Consequently, the All pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, stands disposed of. TRIPTI SAINI 2026.02.06 09:28 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document