CRM-M-22681-2026 (O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 109+248 CRM-M-22681-2026 (O&M) Reserved on : 17.07.2026 Pronounced on : 22.07.2026 RAJIV ......Petitioner Versus STATE OF HARYANA ......Respondent 1. Date when the judgment was reserved 17.07.2026 2. Date when the judgment is pronounced 22.07.2026 3. Date when the judgment is uploaded on the website 22.07.2026 4. Whether only operative part of the judgment is pronounced or whether the full judgment is pronounced Full 5. The delay, if any, of the pronouncement of full judgment, and reasons thereof. Not applicable. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY VASHISTH Present: Dr. Anmol Rattan Sidhu, Senior Advocate, with Mr. Shiv Kumar Sharma, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Pawan Kumar Garg, DAG, Haryana. **** SANJAY VASHISTH, J. 1. The instant petition has been filed under Section 483 of BNSS, 2023 (earlier Section 439 Cr.P.C.), for grant of regular bail to the petitioner, during the pendency of trial, who is booked in a LAVISHA 2026.07.22 19:53 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document PHHC, Chandigarh CRM-M-22681-2026 (O&M) 2 criminal case arising out of First Information Report, as detailed hereunder:- Name of Petitioner(s) FIR No. Date Section(s) Police Station District Rajiv, aged about 50 years 364 20.12.2025 22(c) of NDPS Act Urban Estate Rohtak 2. On the basis of information furnished by the Drug Control Officer (DCO), namely, Dr. Mandeep Mann, SI Anup Singh registered present FIR against the petitioner, who is stated to be running a licensed medical store under the name and style of ‘Poonam Gupta Medical Hall’, situated near Sheela Bypass, Rohtak. 3. Brief facts of the present case, as discussed in the order dated 15.04.2026, by the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Rohtak, are reproduced here below, for reference:- “The brief facts of the case are that on 20.12.2025, SI Anup No. 147, Rohtak, along with HC Harjeet No. 2275 and driver EASI Surender No. 1483, was present on duty as SDO at Police Station Urban Estate, Rohtak, in government vehicle No. HR 12 GV 6384. During this time, the MHC of Police Station Urban Estate informed SI Anup that a checking of Gupta Medical Store near Sheela Bypass, Rohtak, had been conducted by a team led by Drug Controller Officer Dr. Mandeep Mann. ASI Rajesh Kumar No. 19 contacted the official telephone of Police Station Urban Estate, Rohtak, from his mobile number 7056403719 and informed that during the checking, LAVISHA 2026.07.22 19:53 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document PHHC, Chandigarh CRM-M-22681-2026 (O&M) 3 several banned medicines had been recovered, some of which fell under the purview of the NDPS Act. Accordingly, SI Anup prepared a notice under Section 42 of the NDPS Act and made entry vide Report No. 39 dated 20.12.2025 in the daily diary of Police Station Urban Estate, Rohtak. Thereafter, SI Anup, along with HC Harjeet No. 2275 and driver EASI Surender No. 1483, proceeded to the spot in government vehicle No. HR 12 GV 6384. Upon reaching Sheela Bypass, Rohtak, Drug Controller Officer Dr. Mandeep Mann, along with his team members ASI Rajesh Kumar No. 19/RTK, ASI Sanjeet No. 1257, and HC Jitendra No. 2103 of the Anti-Narcotics Branch, Rohtak, was found present at Poonam (Gupta) Medical Hall. As per Drug Controller Officer Dr. Mandeep Mann, during the search of Poonam (Gupta) Medical Hall, a total of seven types/brands of drugs falling under the NDPS Act were recovered. The recovered medicines were produced before SI Anup in the presence of witnesses, including Rajiv Gupta and independent witnesses, along with the license of Poonam Medical Hall and four pages of Form 21C. On checking the first type of drug, 264 capsules of Tramadol were found. Out of these, 8 capsules were weighed on an electronic scale and found to weigh 4.48 grams. Accordingly, the total weight of 264 capsules was calculated as 147.84 grams. These capsules were placed in a yellow- colored envelope, sealed, and marked as Parcel No. 1. On checking the second type, 48 capsules of LAVISHA 2026.07.22 19:53 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document PHHC, Chandigarh CRM-M-22681-2026 (O&M) 4 Tramadol were found. Eight capsules weighed 4.84 grams. The total weight of 48 capsules was calculated as 29.04 grams. These were sealed and marked as Parcel No. 2. On checking the third type, 20 capsules of Tramadol were found. Eight capsules weighed 4.76 grams. The total weight of 20 capsules was calculated as 11.90 grams. These were sealed and marked as Parcel No. 3. On checking the fourth type, 24 capsules of Tramadol were found. Eight capsules weighed 4.82 grams. The total weight of 24 capsules was calculated as 14.46 grams. These were sealed and marked as Parcel No. 4. On checking the fifth type, 90 tablets of Etizolam were found. Fifteen tablets weighed 0.84 grams. The total weight of 90 tablets was calculated as 5.04 grams. These were sealed and marked as Parcel No. 5. On checking the sixth type, four injections of Buprenorphine each containing 2 ml, totaling 8 ml, were found. These were sealed and marked as Parcel No. 6. On checking the seventh type, 10 tablets of Tramadol were found, having a total weight of 1.54 grams. These were sealed and marked as Parcel No. 7. Each yellow-colored envelope (parcel) was sealed with the seal bearing impression “AS/2,” and a sample seal was prepared. After use, the seal was handed over to HC Harjeet No. 2275. Drug Controller Officer Dr. Mandeep Mann also sealed each parcel and the sample seal with his seal bearing impression “MAK/1.” After use, he retained his seal. As per the above details, the total weight of recovered Tramadol (Serial Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4, LAVISHA 2026.07.22 19:53 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document PHHC, Chandigarh CRM-M-22681-2026 (O&M) 5 and 7) was 204.78 grams. The total weight of Etizolam (Serial No. 5) was 5.04 grams. The total quantity of Buprenorphine (Serial No. 6) was 8 ml. The recovered narcotic drug parcels, the license of Poonam Medical Hall, and four pages of Form 21C were taken into police possession as evidence. A recovery memo was prepared and signed by the accused and the witnesses, including independent witnesses. Due to the non-availability of independent electronic evidence, the proceedings were videographed using a mobile phone. As per the license obtained by the accused Rajiv Gupta, son of Shri Jai Bhagwan, resident of House No. 1427, Sector 3, Rohtak, and proprietor of Poonam Gupta Medical Hall, Sheela Bypass, Rohtak, he was prohibited from keeping medicines falling under the NDPS Act. Despite this prohibition, the accused kept the above- mentioned narcotic medicines in his possession, thereby committing an offence punishable under Section 22(c) of the NDPS Act. Accordingly, the FIR was registered.” 4. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner argues that petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case, veracity of which can only be determined during the course of trial. It is contended that Drug Control Officer (DCO), Dr. Mandeep Mann, is personally inimical towards the petitioner, because he implicated the petitioner in similar cases on earlier occasions also, by conducting repeated raids at the medical store run by him. LAVISHA 2026.07.22 19:53 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document PHHC, Chandigarh CRM-M-22681-2026 (O&M) 6 5. To demonstrate the alleged mala fide on the part of prosecution in implicating the petitioner, learned Senior Counsel submits that earlier one FIR No.151 dated 24.04.2017, under Section 22 of the NDPS Act, registered at Police Station Urban Estate, Rohtak, was also lodged against the petitioner and his brother, at the instance of Drug Inspector Dr. Mandeep Mann. However, the said FIR was quashed by the co-ordinate Bench of this Court, vide order dated 23.03.2026 passed in CRM-M-24029-2017 (Annexure P-3), on account of non-compliance with the mandatory provisions of law. 6. Learned Senior Counsel further points out that, subsequently, on 06.01.2025, the same officer, namely, Dr. Mandeep Mann, conducted raid at petitioner's medical store, but no narcotic substance was found. It is submitted that, thereafter, during another raid conducted by Dr. Mandeep Mann, DCO, in the year 2025 itself, present recovery was allegedly planted upon the petitioner. It is contended that recovery memos would reveal that the same were not prepared by the DCO, but by the investigating officer, and thereafter, attestation of Dr. Mandeep Mann was obtained. 7. It is further submitted that two independent witnesses, namely, Mahesh Kumar (PW-3) and Deepak (PW-4), have already been examined during trial, but both have not supported the case of the prosecution, as reflected from Annexures P-5 and P-6. Learned Senior Counsel, therefore, submits that prosecution case is highly doubtful. LAVISHA 2026.07.22 19:53 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document PHHC, Chandigarh CRM-M-22681-2026 (O&M) 7 8. As per the allegations, following drugs were recovered in the present case:- i. 264 capsules Tramadol, weighing 147.8 grams, mark SPASMAX ii. 48 capsules Tramadol, weighing 29.0 grams, mark SPASMO PROXYVON PLUS iii. 20 capsules Tramadol, weighing 11.9 grams, mark SPASCOREVON iv. 24 capsules Tramadol, weighing 14.46 grams, mark SYMDEX PLUS v. 90 tablets Etizolam, weighing 5.04 grams, mark ETIZOLA vi. 4 injections Buprenorphine of 8 ML, mark BUPINE vii. 10 tablets Tramadol, weighing 1.5 grams, mark CELIDOL. 9. Learned Senior Counsel further submits that petitioner is in custody since 20.12.2025,, i.e. for a period of about 6 months and 23 days, and actual quantity of tramadol salt recovered from the petitioner is only 204.78 grams, which is below the prescribed threshold of 250 grams, required for categorisation as a commercial quantity. It is further submitted that although, the salt content of etizolam recovered from total 90 tablets is stated to be 5.04 grams, i.e. above the notified quantity of 2.5 grams, but the issue regarding variation in potency vis-a-vis the tablets of alprazolam, is presently pending consideration before this Court in another matter. LAVISHA 2026.07.22 19:53 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document PHHC, Chandigarh CRM-M-22681-2026 (O&M) 8 10. It is further case of the prosecution that, as per the licence conditions pertaining to possession of medicines, petitioner was prohibited from keeping the medicines falling within the ambit of NDPS Act. However, despite the said allegation, petitioner has been implicated on the basis of the alleged recovery of the aforesaid medicines. 11. Learned Senior Counsel submits that Co-ordinate Bench of this Court, while undertaking a comparative analysis, though not finally deciding the issue, has been granting the concession of bail, considering the disproportionate variation in potency and difference in classification of commercial and non-commercial quantities between alprazolam and etizolam tablets. 12. Learned Senior Counsel further submits that law laid down by Hon'ble the Supreme Court, in the case of ‘Hira Singh and another vs. Union of India and another, (2020) 20 SCC 272’, rendered approximately five/six years ago, is presently under reconsideration before Hon'ble Supreme Court, in the case of ‘Mayank Girishbhai Shah vs. Union of India’, [Writ Petition (Civil) No.816 of 2025]. 13. In response to the arguments addressed by learned counsel for the petitioner, learned State counsel, produces the custody certificate dated 15.07.2026 in Court today, which is taken on record. Office to tag the same at appropriate place. A copy thereof has been handed over to the counsel for the petitioner. LAVISHA 2026.07.22 19:53 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document PHHC, Chandigarh CRM-M-22681-2026 (O&M) 9 As per the custody certificate, in the present case, petitioner has already undergone 06 months and 23 days period inside jail. 14. To oppose the prayer for bail, learned State counsel submits that case of the prosecution pertains to the recovery of commercial quantity of tramadol and etizolam tablets. It is contended that, unless the law laid down in Hira Singh's case is reversed or modified, the entire quantity of the recovered narcotic substance, would be considered as commercial quantity, and thus, even tramadol is to be treated in whole as a commercial quantity. Learned State counsel further submits that mere turning hostile of the witnesses, would not by itself weaken the case of the prosecution nor, entitles the petitioner to seek bail, particularly when recovery of the narcotic contraband as commercial quantity is pending consideration before the Court. It is, therefore, contended that petitioner does not deserve the concession of regular bail, at this stage. 15. This Court has heard the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties and has also carefully gone through the material available on record. 16. Ordinarily, in cases, where an accused has no other case registered against him under the NDPS Act, and recovery pertains to commercial quantity of prohibited substances, though marginally higher than non-commercial quantity, this Court considers the prayer for bail in LAVISHA 2026.07.22 19:53 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document PHHC, Chandigarh CRM-M-22681-2026 (O&M) 10 such cases, after underoing the substantial period inside jail by the accused, oftenly around one year. However, in the present case, an important aspect which requires consideration is the allegation regarding repeated involvement of the petitioner by the same Drug Control Officer, who conducted the raids at the petitioner's medical store frequently, and this aspect would be examined by trial Court also. In case, allegations of false implication are ultimately established, continued incarceration of the petitioner for an indefinite period may result in undue hardship and cause irreparable loss to him. 17. It also deserves to be noticed that, out of total 17 prosecution witnesses, only 03 have been examined, till date. Thus, conclusion of the trial is likely to take considerable time. 18. Furthermore, judgment in the case of ‘Hira Singh and another vs. Union of India and another, (2020) 20 SCC 272’, is again under consideration before the Hon'ble Supreme Court, in the case of Mayank Girishbhai Shah vs. Union of India (supra). Therefore, taking a balanced thought and also without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, this Court is of the considered view that no prejudice is likely to be caused to the prosecution, if petitioner is extended the concession of regular bail during the pendency of trial. Therefore, in view of the totality of circumstances, nature of allegations levelled against the petitioner, period of incarceration inside LAVISHA 2026.07.22 19:53 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document PHHC, Chandigarh CRM-M-22681-2026 (O&M) 11 jail, and other factors noticed here above, this Court deems it appropriate to grant the concession of bail to the petitioner in the present case. 19. Consequently, prayer made in the present petition is allowed. Petitioner is ordered to be released on bail, subject to his furnishing bail/surety bonds to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court/ Chief Judicial Magistrate/ Illaqa Magistrate/ Duty Magistrate concerned, if not required in any other case. 20. Needless to observe that the petitioner shall not extend any threat and shall not influence any prosecution witness in any manner directly or indirectly. 21. Any of the discussion done and recorded here above, shall not be construed as an expression of opinion on the facts of the case. Therefore, trial Court is expected to decide the case by taking an independent view, on the basis of evidence available on record, as expeditiously as possible, in accordance with law. 22. It is further made clear that if, in future, petitioner is directly found indulged in similar kind of activities, this order shall be deemed to be cancelled. 23. Petition stands disposed of. (SANJAY VASHISTH) JUDGE 22.07.2026 Lavisha Whether Speaking/Reasoned: YES/NO Whether Reportable: YES/NO LAVISHA 2026.07.22 19:53 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document PHHC, Chandigarh