CRM-M No.23211 of 2026 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 209 ***** CRM-M No.23211 of 2026 Date of decision : 10.7.2026 Date of uploading : 10.7.2026 Pushpender @ Kalu ………….Petitioner Versus State of Haryana …….Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL Present: Mr. Nikhil Vats, Advocate, for the petitioner Mr. Gurmeet Singh, AAG, Haryana --- SUMEET GOEL, J. (ORAL) 1. Present petition has been filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short ‘BNSS’) for grant of regular bail to the petitioner in case FIR No.27 dated 15.2.2026 under Section 20 of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (Section 20(b)(II)B of NDPS Act added later on), registered at Police Station Sadar, Jhajjar. 2. The gravamen of the FIR in question pertains to recovery of 9Kg. 800 grams of ganja from the petitioner. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the petitioner is in custody since 15.2.2026. Learned counsel has further argued that the petitioner has been falsely implicated into the FIR in question. Learned counsel has further submitted that mandatory provisions of NDPS Act ASHWANI KUMAR 2026.07.10 12:58 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M No.23211 of 2026 -2- have not scrupulously been complied with and therefore, the prosecution case suffers from inherent defects. Learned counsel has further submitted that, assuming arguendo, the prosecution version is taken to be correct, the contraband alleged to have been recovered from the petitioner is 9 Kgs. 800 grams of ganja, which is non-commercial quantity, and thus rigors of Section 37 of NDPS Act would not apply. Learned counsel has further submitted that though 17 prosecution witnesses have been cited but none have been examined till date. Thus, regular bail is prayed for. 4. Learned State counsel had filed status report dated 19.6.2026 by way of affidavit of Anirudh Chauhan, HPS, Assistant Commissioner of Police, HQ, District Jhajjar. The same is already on record. Raising submissions in tandem with the said reply, learned State counsel has opposed the present petition by arguing that the allegations raised are serious in nature and thus the petitioner does not deserve the concession of the regular bail. Learned State counsel seeks to place on record custody certificate dated 9.7.2026 in Court, which is taken on record. 5. I have heard counsel for the parties and have gone through the available records of the case. 6. The petitioner was arrested on 15.2.2026 wherein after investigation was carried out; challan was prepared on 8.4.2026 and subsequently filed. Total 17 prosecution witnesses have been cited but none have been examined till date. It is thus indubitable that culmination of trial will take its own time. The contraband alleged to have been recovered from the petitioner does not fall in commercial quantity; hence ASHWANI KUMAR 2026.07.10 12:58 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M No.23211 of 2026 -3- rigors of Section 37 would not apply. The rival contentions raised at Bar give rise to debatable issues which 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 absconding from the process of justice or interfering with the prosecution evidence. 6.1 As per custody certificate dated 9.7.2026 filed by learned State counsel, the petitioner has already suffered incarceration for a period of 4 months and 23 days. As per the said custody certificate, the petitioner is stated to be involved in 3 other FIRs. Indubitably, the antecedents of a person are required to be accounted for while considering a regular bail petition preferred by him. 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 bail qua 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 Hon’ble Supreme Court in Maulana Mohd. Amir Rashadi v. State of U.P. and 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 (Criminal) 477 & judgments of this Court in CRM-M No.38822-2022 titled as Akhilesh Singh v. State of Haryana, decided on 29.11.2021, and Balraj v. State of Haryana, 1998 (3) RCR (Criminal) 191. ASHWANI KUMAR 2026.07.10 12:58 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M No.23211 of 2026 -4- Suffice to say, further detention of the petitioner as an undertrial is not warranted in the facts and circumstances of the case. 7. 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 CJM/Duty Magistrate. However, in addition to conditions that may be imposed by the concerned CJM/Duty Magistrate, the petitioner shall remain bound by the following conditions:- (i) The petitioner shall not mis-use the liberty granted. (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 cell-phone 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. (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 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, forthwith, for cancellation of his bail which plea, but of course, shall be ratiocinated upon merits thereof. 8. In case of breach of any of the aforesaid conditions and those which may be imposed by concerned CJM/Duty Magistrate as directed hereinabove or upon showing any other sufficient cause, the State/complainant shall be at liberty to move cancellation of bail of the petitioner. ASHWANI KUMAR 2026.07.10 12:58 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M No.23211 of 2026 -5- 9. Ordered accordingly. 10. Nothing said hereinabove shall be construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case. (SUMEET GOEL) JUDGE 10.7.2026 Ashwanii Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No Whether reportable: Yes/No ASHWANI KUMAR 2026.07.10 12:58 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document