Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Punjab and Haryana · body

2026 DAILYLAW 34025 (PNJ)

AZIZ @ AZZI v. STATE OF HARYANA

CRM-M/24688/2026 · 2026-07-28

Manisha Batra

body2026

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

CRM-M No.24688 of 2026 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M No.24688 of 2026 Date of decision: 28.07.2026 Aziz @ Azzi ... Petitioner Vs. State of Haryana ... Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANISHA BATRA Present:- Mr. Saleem Ahmed, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Neeraj Poswal, AAG, Haryana, for the respondent-State. ---- MANISHA BATRA, J. (Oral) 1. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short ‘BNSS’) seeking regular bail in the FIR mentioned below:- FIR No. Dated Police Station Sections 173 20.07.2024 City Nuh, District Nuh 22(b) of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short ‘NDPS Act’) 2. Brief facts relevant for the purpose of disposal of this petition MANJU 2026.07.28 14:25 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order /judgment Chandigarh CRM-M No.24688 of 2026 -2- are that the aforementioned FIR was registered on the allegations that on 20.07.2024, a secret information was received to the effect that the accused Javed was involved in the business of sale of intoxicating injections and on that very day also, he was standing in front of near Sardar Gummukh School near Nuh while being in possession of such intoxicants and could be apprehended. Believing the secret information to be true, a raiding party was formed which reached at the informed place and apprehended accused Javed. On conducting search, four injections of Buprenophine were recovered from his conscious possession. He was taken into custody. On interrogation, he suffered disclosure statement on the basis of which the present petitioner was nominated as accused. He was arrested on 11.02.2026 and suffered disclosure statement. Investigation now stands completed. 3. It is argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that he has been falsely implicated in this case on the basis of disclosure statement allegedly suffered by the co-accused which cannot be considered to be legally admissible in evidence. He is in custody since 11.02.2026. No recovery has been effected from him. He is not required for further investigation. The trial will take considerable time to conclude. His further incarceration will not serve any useful purpose. It is, therefore, stressed that he deserves to be released on bail. 4. Per contra, learned State counsel has argued that the allegations MANJU 2026.07.28 14:25 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order /judgment Chandigarh CRM-M No.24688 of 2026 -3- against the petitioner are serious in nature. He is a habitual offender and has been involved in several other cases. Though he had been acquitted in four of the cases as registered against him but he is under trial in eight cases, four of which have been registered under the provisions of NDPS Act. There are chances of his committing similar offences, if extended benefit of bail. The trial is going on at a proper pace. It is, therefore, argued that the petition does not deserve to be allowed. 5. This Court has considered the rival submissions. 6. The petitioner is alleged to have been engaged in supply of intoxicants to the co-accused Javed from whom recovery of such intoxicating injections had been effected. Investigation has been concluded. The trial will take considerable time to conclude. He has been nominated on the basis of disclosure statement of co-accused Javed. In Tofan Singh Vs. State of Tamil Nadu, (2021) 4 SCC 1, it was observed by Hon’ble Apex Court that the disclosure statements made under Section 67 of NDPS Act, are inadmissible in evidence unless corroborated by independent material. While the veracity of the disclosure statement against the petitioner will be tested during the course of trial, however, at this stage, it cannot be ignored that no recovery was ever effected from the petitioner. The object of jail is to secure the appearance of the accused during the trial and it can neither be punitive nor preventive and the deprivation of liberty has been considered as a MANJU 2026.07.28 14:25 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order /judgment Chandigarh CRM-M No.24688 of 2026 -4- punishment. As per the discussion made above, this Court is of the considered opinion that a case for release of the petitioner is made out. Accordingly, the petition is allowed and the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail subject to his furnishing personal/surety bonds to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court/Chief Judicial Magistrate/ Duty Magistrate concerned and on the following conditions:- (i) the petitioner shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case or tamper with the evidence of the case in any manner whatsoever. (ii) he shall not leave the country under any circumstance without permission of the learned trial Court. (iii) he shall appear before the learned trial Court as and when directed. (iv) he shall provide his permanent address as well as present address before the learned trial Court at the time of furnishing of bonds and shall not change the same without informing the trial Court. (v) the petitioner shall give details of his mobile phone number(s) to the learned trial Court at the time of furnishing of bonds and in case, any change in his mobile phone number takes place, then he shall inform about the same to MANJU 2026.07.28 14:25 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order /judgment Chandigarh CRM-M No.24688 of 2026 -5- the learned trial Court in advance and shall keep his mobile phone switch on all times. 7. In the event of there being any FIR/complaint lodged against the petitioner, it shall be open to the respondent to seek redressal by filing an application seeking cancellation of bail. 8. It is, however, clarified that the observations made hereinabove shall not be construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case and shall not influence the outcome of the trial. (MANISHA BATRA) 28.07.2026 JUDGE manju Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether reportable Yes/No MANJU 2026.07.28 14:25 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order /judgment Chandigarh