CRM-M- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT 224 Rajneesh Sharma The State of Haryana Date of decision: Date of Uploading : 23.07.2026 CORAM: Present: SUMEET GOEL 1. Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 202 the petitioner, in case bearing FIR No. offences punishable under Section Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short ‘NDPS Act’), at Police Station DLF Phase 2. apprehended while he was travelling in a Swift car and durin vehicle, 147 bottles of Codeine bottles of Codeine Tramadol based medicine (Piengo Plus) and 1920 capsules of Tramadol based medicine (Pyeevon Codeine syrup and 6720 capsules containing Tramadol have allegedly being recovered from the possession of the petitioner. 3. has been falsely implicated into the FIR in question and has no direct or indirect connection with the alleged recovery. Learned counsel has further -16910-2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Rajneesh Sharma V/s The State of Haryana Date of decision: 23.07.2026 Date of Uploading : 23.07.2026 CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL Mr. M.S. Mavi, Advocate for the petitioner. Mrs. Priyanka Sadar, Senior D ***** SUMEET GOEL, J. (Oral) 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 bearing FIR No.189 offences punishable under Sections 21(c) a Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short ‘NDPS Act’), at Police Station DLF Phase-I, Gurugram. The gravamen of allegations against the petitioner is that he apprehended while he was travelling in a Swift car and durin vehicle, 147 bottles of Codeine-based cough syrup (Batch S bottles of Codeine-based cough syrup (Batch S Tramadol based medicine (Piengo Plus) and 1920 capsules of Tramadol based medicine (Pyeevon-Spas Plus) have been recovered. In total, 264 bottles of Codeine syrup and 6720 capsules containing Tramadol have allegedly being recovered from the possession of the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner has iterated that the has been falsely implicated into the FIR in question and has no direct or indirect connection with the alleged recovery. Learned counsel has further 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-16910-2026 ....Petitioner ....Respondent HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL Mr. M.S. Mavi, Advocate for the petitioner. Senior DAG Hry. Present petition has been filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya 3 (for short ‘BNSS’) for grant of regular bail to dated 18.07.2025, registered for the (c) and 22(c) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short ‘NDPS Act’), at Police Station The gravamen of allegations against the petitioner is that he was apprehended while he was travelling in a Swift car and during the search of the based cough syrup (Batch S-361024), 117 based cough syrup (Batch S-371024), 4800 capsules of Tramadol based medicine (Piengo Plus) and 1920 capsules of Tramadol based Spas Plus) have been recovered. In total, 264 bottles of Codeine syrup and 6720 capsules containing Tramadol have allegedly being recovered from the possession of the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner has iterated that the petitioner has been falsely implicated into the FIR in question and has no direct or indirect connection with the alleged recovery. Learned counsel has further Present petition has been filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya 3 (for short ‘BNSS’) for grant of regular bail to , registered for the of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short ‘NDPS Act’), at Police Station was g the search of the 361024), 117 371024), 4800 capsules of Tramadol based medicine (Piengo Plus) and 1920 capsules of Tramadol based Spas Plus) have been recovered. In total, 264 bottles of Codeine syrup and 6720 capsules containing Tramadol have allegedly being petitioner has been falsely implicated into the FIR in question and has no direct or indirect connection with the alleged recovery. Learned counsel has further AJAY KUMAR 2026.07.24 11:35 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M- iterated that the witness has been associa learned counsel, of recovery records to establish the presence of the petitioner at the been brought on record prosecution. of the NDPS Act have not scrupulously been complied with, and thus, the prosecution case suffer contended that the witness to the search and seizure proceedings despite the fact that the alleged recovery has been made from a public place. Furth entire case against the petitioner rests solely police officials, alleged recovery memos and statements of police witnesses and there is no independent corroboration the conscious Furthermore, the entire case of the prosecution is based on conjectures and surmises alleged recovery provisions of Section 42 of the NDPS Act have not been complied with in letter and spirit. liability thereof cannot be fastened upon the petitioner. iterated that the petitioner is in custody since undergone a substantial period of custody. According to learned counsel, the trial is likely to take a considerable time to conclude as out of prosecution witnesses cited, none has -16910-2026 iterated that the alleged recovery is highly doubtful as no independent witness has been associated with the recovery proceedings learned counsel, there are inherent discrepancies with regard to exact place recovery as no material in the shape of CCTV footage or call details records to establish the presence of the petitioner at the been brought on record which completely demolishes the case of the prosecution. Learned counsel has further submitted that mandatory provisions of the NDPS Act have not scrupulously been complied with, and thus, the prosecution case suffers from inherent defects. contended that the prosecution has failed to join any independent public witness to the search and seizure proceedings despite the fact that the alleged recovery has been made from a public place. Furth entire case against the petitioner rests solely police officials, alleged recovery memos and statements of police witnesses and there is no independent corroboration the conscious possession of the narcotic and psychotropic substance. Furthermore, the entire case of the prosecution is based on conjectures and and lacks any credible evidence to connect the petitioner with the alleged recovery. It has been further contended provisions of Section 42 of the NDPS Act have not been complied with in letter and spirit. Learned counsel has iterated that the trial is delayed and the liability thereof cannot be fastened upon the petitioner. ated that the petitioner is in custody since undergone a substantial period of custody. According to learned counsel, the trial is likely to take a considerable time to conclude as out of prosecution witnesses cited, none has 2 alleged recovery is highly doubtful as no independent ted with the recovery proceedings. According to there are inherent discrepancies with regard to exact place as no material in the shape of CCTV footage or call details records to establish the presence of the petitioner at the alleged spot has which completely demolishes the case of the Learned counsel has further submitted that mandatory provisions of the NDPS Act have not scrupulously been complied with, and thus, the s from inherent defects. Learned counsel has further prosecution has failed to join any independent public witness to the search and seizure proceedings despite the fact that the alleged recovery has been made from a public place. Furthermore, the entire case against the petitioner rests solely on the documents prepared by police officials, alleged recovery memos and statements of police witnesses and there is no independent corroboration nay credible material to establish possession of the narcotic and psychotropic substance. Furthermore, the entire case of the prosecution is based on conjectures and and lacks any credible evidence to connect the petitioner with the . It has been further contended that the mandatory provisions of Section 42 of the NDPS Act have not been complied with in Learned counsel has iterated that the trial is delayed and the liability thereof cannot be fastened upon the petitioner. It has been further ated that the petitioner is in custody since 18.07.2025 and has already undergone a substantial period of custody. According to learned counsel, the trial is likely to take a considerable time to conclude as out of prosecution witnesses cited, none has been examined. Moreover, the alleged recovery is highly doubtful as no independent . According to there are inherent discrepancies with regard to exact place as no material in the shape of CCTV footage or call details has which completely demolishes the case of the Learned counsel has further submitted that mandatory provisions of the NDPS Act have not scrupulously been complied with, and thus, the Learned counsel has further prosecution has failed to join any independent public witness to the search and seizure proceedings despite the fact that the ermore, the on the documents prepared by police officials, alleged recovery memos and statements of police witnesses credible material to establish possession of the narcotic and psychotropic substance. Furthermore, the entire case of the prosecution is based on conjectures and and lacks any credible evidence to connect the petitioner with the that the mandatory provisions of Section 42 of the NDPS Act have not been complied with in Learned counsel has iterated that the trial is delayed and the It has been further and has already undergone a substantial period of custody. According to learned counsel, the trial is likely to take a considerable time to conclude as out of 16 been examined. Moreover, the AJAY KUMAR 2026.07.24 11:35 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M- petitioner is not required for any further investigation and that there is no likelihood of tampering with evidence or influencing witnesses if he is granted the concession of regular bail. the grant of regular bail is entreated for. 4. by arguing that the allegations raised against the petitioner are serious in nature and, thus, the petitioner does not deserve the concessi Learned State counsel has further submitted that meet the rigors of Section 37 of the NDPS Act and is, thus, liable to be rejected on this score alone. involved in three other cases under the NDPS Act. released on bail, there is all likelihood that he may abscond from the process of justice and also interfere with the prosecution witnesses/evidence. Accordingly, the dismis 5. book as also the record produced before me. 6. petitioner. As per the prosecu while travelling in a car and during the search of the said vehicle, 147 bottles of Codeine syrup, 4800 capsules of Tramadol based medicine and 1920 capsules of Tramadol based medicine have been recovered from the the considered opinion of this Court, the allegations as also recovery of the contraband, disentitle the petitioner to the discretionary relief of regular bail. Furthermore, no accen out which may bail to the petitioner, especially in light of the recovery of commercial quantity -16910-2026 petitioner is not required for any further investigation and that there is no likelihood of tampering with evidence or influencing witnesses if he is granted the concession of regular bail. On the strength of these submissions, the grant of regular bail is entreated for. Per contra, learned State counsel has opposed the present petition by arguing that the allegations raised against the petitioner are serious in nature and, thus, the petitioner does not deserve the concessi Learned State counsel has further submitted that meet the rigors of Section 37 of the NDPS Act and is, thus, liable to be rejected on this score alone. Furthermore, the petitioner is a habitual offender as involved in three other cases under the NDPS Act. released on bail, there is all likelihood that he may abscond from the process of justice and also interfere with the prosecution witnesses/evidence. Accordingly, the dismissal of the petition in hand is prayed for. I have heard counsel for the rival parties and perused the paper book as also the record produced before me. Indubitably, serious allegations have been levelled against the petitioner. As per the prosecution case while travelling in a car and during the search of the said vehicle, 147 bottles of Codeine-based cough syrup, 117 bottles of Codeine syrup, 4800 capsules of Tramadol based medicine and 1920 capsules of Tramadol based medicine have been recovered from the the considered opinion of this Court, the allegations as also recovery of the contraband, disentitle the petitioner to the discretionary relief of regular bail. Furthermore, no accentuating or exceptional circumstances have been made out which may prima facie constitute a compelling ground for grant of regular bail to the petitioner, especially in light of the recovery of commercial quantity 3 petitioner is not required for any further investigation and that there is no likelihood of tampering with evidence or influencing witnesses if he is On the strength of these submissions, , learned State counsel has opposed the present petition by arguing that the allegations raised against the petitioner are serious in nature and, thus, the petitioner does not deserve the concession of regular bail. Learned State counsel has further submitted that the petition in hand does not meet the rigors of Section 37 of the NDPS Act and is, thus, liable to be rejected the petitioner is a habitual offender as he is involved in three other cases under the NDPS Act. In case, the petitioner is released on bail, there is all likelihood that he may abscond from the process of justice and also interfere with the prosecution witnesses/evidence. sal of the petition in hand is prayed for. I have heard counsel for the rival parties and perused the paper book as also the record produced before me. Indubitably, serious allegations have been levelled against the case, the petitioner was apprehended while travelling in a car and during the search of the said vehicle, 147 based cough syrup, 117 bottles of Codeine-based cough syrup, 4800 capsules of Tramadol based medicine and 1920 capsules of Tramadol based medicine have been recovered from the boot of the car. the considered opinion of this Court, the allegations as also recovery of the contraband, disentitle the petitioner to the discretionary relief of regular bail. tuating or exceptional circumstances have been made constitute a compelling ground for grant of regular bail to the petitioner, especially in light of the recovery of commercial quantity petitioner is not required for any further investigation and that there is no likelihood of tampering with evidence or influencing witnesses if he is On the strength of these submissions, , learned State counsel has opposed the present petition by arguing that the allegations raised against the petitioner are serious in nature on of regular bail. petition in hand does not meet the rigors of Section 37 of the NDPS Act and is, thus, liable to be rejected he is In case, the petitioner is released on bail, there is all likelihood that he may abscond from the process of justice and also interfere with the prosecution witnesses/evidence. I have heard counsel for the rival parties and perused the paper- Indubitably, serious allegations have been levelled against the the petitioner was apprehended while travelling in a car and during the search of the said vehicle, 147 based cough syrup, 4800 capsules of Tramadol based medicine and 1920 capsules of of the car. In the considered opinion of this Court, the allegations as also recovery of the contraband, disentitle the petitioner to the discretionary relief of regular bail. tuating or exceptional circumstances have been made constitute a compelling ground for grant of regular bail to the petitioner, especially in light of the recovery of commercial quantity AJAY KUMAR 2026.07.24 11:35 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M- of the contraband. The Court cannot accept the plea of the false implication the petitioner material. The argument of the learned counsel that the petitioner has been falsely implicated into the the surrounding circumstances of the incident raise doubts that can only be clarified during the course of trial. 7. investigation was carried o 14.01.2026 examined till date. From the rival submissions as also the material brought forth before the petitioner to meet with the rigors of Section 37 of the NDPS Act mandatory in nature. Reference in this regard can be made to the judgment(s) passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court titled as Ashruba Nakade, Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No.9792/2025 India versus Vigin K. Varghese, Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No(s).7768 of 2025 and State of Punjab versus Sukhwinder Singh @ Gora, Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No.5020/2026 7.1. period of incarceration undergone by the petitioner contraband recovered, is not sufficient to grant the concession of regular bail as well. A profitable reference in the Hon’ble Supreme Court titled as Gora = 2026 INSC 411 INSC 618. 7.2. considered at this stage is the criminal antecedents of the petitioner which -16910-2026 of the contraband. The Court cannot accept the plea of the false implication the petitioner merely based on bald assertions unsupported by any cogent material. The argument of the learned counsel that the petitioner has been falsely implicated into the FIR in question, cannot be accepted, at this stage, as the surrounding circumstances of the incident raise doubts that can only be clarified during the course of trial. The petitioner was arrested on investigation was carried out and challan qua 14.01.2026. Out of total 16 cited prosecution witnesses, none has been examined till date. From the rival submissions as also the material brought forth before this Court, no cause nay plausible cause is m the petitioner to meet with the rigors of Section 37 of the NDPS Act mandatory in nature. Reference in this regard can be made to the judgment(s) passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court titled as uba Nakade, Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No.9792/2025 India versus Vigin K. Varghese, Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No(s).7768 of State of Punjab versus Sukhwinder Singh @ Gora, Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No.5020/2026. Furthermore, the petitioner is in custody since period of incarceration undergone by the petitioner contraband recovered, is not sufficient to grant the concession of regular bail as well. A profitable reference in this regard can be made to the judgment(s) of the Hon’ble Supreme Court titled as State of Punjab vs. Sukhwinder Singh @ Gora = 2026 INSC 411 and State of Punjab vs. Balraj Singh @ Billa = 2026 INSC 618. Another important nay significant factor which deserves to be considered at this stage is the criminal antecedents of the petitioner which 4 of the contraband. The Court cannot accept the plea of the false implication merely based on bald assertions unsupported by any cogent material. The argument of the learned counsel that the petitioner has been FIR in question, cannot be accepted, at this stage, as the surrounding circumstances of the incident raise doubts that can only be The petitioner was arrested on 18.07.2025 whereinafter qua the petitioner was presented on cited prosecution witnesses, none has been examined till date. From the rival submissions as also the material brought plausible cause is made out in favour of the petitioner to meet with the rigors of Section 37 of the NDPS Act which is mandatory in nature. Reference in this regard can be made to the judgment(s) passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court titled as Union of India versus Namdeo uba Nakade, Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No.9792/2025; Union of India versus Vigin K. Varghese, Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No(s).7768 of State of Punjab versus Sukhwinder Singh @ Gora, Special Leave to hermore, the petitioner is in custody since 18.07.2025. The period of incarceration undergone by the petitioner vis.-a-vis., the quantity of contraband recovered, is not sufficient to grant the concession of regular bail as this regard can be made to the judgment(s) of State of Punjab vs. Sukhwinder Singh @ State of Punjab vs. Balraj Singh @ Billa = 2026 significant factor which deserves to be considered at this stage is the criminal antecedents of the petitioner which of the contraband. The Court cannot accept the plea of the false implication of merely based on bald assertions unsupported by any cogent material. The argument of the learned counsel that the petitioner has been FIR in question, cannot be accepted, at this stage, as the surrounding circumstances of the incident raise doubts that can only be whereinafter the petitioner was presented on cited prosecution witnesses, none has been examined till date. From the rival submissions as also the material brought ade out in favour of which is mandatory in nature. Reference in this regard can be made to the judgment(s) Union of India versus Namdeo Union of India versus Vigin K. Varghese, Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No(s).7768 of State of Punjab versus Sukhwinder Singh @ Gora, Special Leave to . The the quantity of contraband recovered, is not sufficient to grant the concession of regular bail as this regard can be made to the judgment(s) of State of Punjab vs. Sukhwinder Singh @ State of Punjab vs. Balraj Singh @ Billa = 2026 significant factor which deserves to be considered at this stage is the criminal antecedents of the petitioner which AJAY KUMAR 2026.07.24 11:35 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M- reflect his involvement in three other cases of similar nature. Though mere pendency of cases is not a ground to deny the bail but the like repetition of offence or misuse of liberty cannot be ruled out at this stage. In the present case, the antecedents of the petitioner do raise a legitimate concern regarding the potential risk if he is released on bail. Furthermore, no accentuati constitute a compelling ground for the grant of regular bail to the petitioner, especially in light of the gravity of the allegations and the evidence placed on record. 8. case in hand; especially the contraband alleged to be recovered being commercial in nature, to abscond from the process of justice & also interfere with the prosec witnesses/ evidence; the petition in hand deserves to be 9. 10. opinion on the merits of the case. 11. application July 23, 202 Ajay -16910-2026 reflect his involvement in three other cases of similar nature. Though mere pendency of cases is not a ground to deny the bail but the like repetition of offence or misuse of liberty cannot be ruled out at this stage. In the present case, the antecedents of the petitioner do raise a legitimate concern regarding the potential risk if he is released on bail. Furthermore, no accentuating circumstances have been made which constitute a compelling ground for the grant of regular bail to the petitioner, especially in light of the gravity of the allegations and the evidence placed on record. Hence, keeping in view the en case in hand; especially the contraband alleged to be recovered being commercial in nature, criminal antecedents; abscond from the process of justice & also interfere with the prosec witnesses/ evidence; the petition in hand deserves to be Ordered accordingly. Nothing said hereinabove shall be construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case. Since the main case has been decided, pendin application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed off. 2026 Whether speaking/reasoned: Whether reportable: 5 reflect his involvement in three other cases of similar nature. Though mere pendency of cases is not a ground to deny the bail but the likelihood of repetition of offence or misuse of liberty cannot be ruled out at this stage. In the present case, the antecedents of the petitioner do raise a legitimate concern regarding the potential risk if he is released on bail. Furthermore, ng circumstances have been made which may prima facie constitute a compelling ground for the grant of regular bail to the petitioner, especially in light of the gravity of the allegations and the evidence placed Hence, keeping in view the entirety of the factual milieu of the case in hand; especially the contraband alleged to be recovered being criminal antecedents; likelihood of the petitioner going abscond from the process of justice & also interfere with the prosecution witnesses/ evidence; the petition in hand deserves to be dismissed. Nothing said hereinabove shall be construed as an expression of Since the main case has been decided, pending miscellaneous , if any, shall also stand disposed off. (SUMEET GOEL) JUDGE Yes/No Yes/No reflect his involvement in three other cases of similar nature. Though mere lihood of repetition of offence or misuse of liberty cannot be ruled out at this stage. In the present case, the antecedents of the petitioner do raise a legitimate concern regarding the potential risk if he is released on bail. Furthermore, prima facie constitute a compelling ground for the grant of regular bail to the petitioner, especially in light of the gravity of the allegations and the evidence placed of the case in hand; especially the contraband alleged to be recovered being likelihood of the petitioner going ution Nothing said hereinabove shall be construed as an expression of g miscellaneous AJAY KUMAR 2026.07.24 11:35 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document