Rahish Ahmad vs State Of Haryana
2021 Latest Caselaw 1237 P&H

CRM-M No.4814 of 2021 (O&M)                                       -1-

    IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND
                HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

                                        CRM-M No.4814 of 2021 (O&M)
                                        Date of Decision.23.03.2021
                                        (Heard through VC)

Rahish Ahmad                                                      ...Petitioner

                                        Vs
State of Haryana                                                 ...Respondent

CORAM:HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE JAISHREE THAKUR

Present: Mr. Tanvir S. Grewal, Advocate for the petitioner.

Ms. Deepshikha Chauhan, AAG, Haryana.

-.-

JAISHREE THAKUR J. (ORAL)

This is a petition that has been filed for grant of regular bail to

the petitioner in FIR No.140 dated 30.10.2019 under Sections 20, 27A & 29

of the NDPS Act and Section 216 IPC registered at Police Station Jhansa,

District Kurukhsetra.

Counsel for the petitioner herein would contend that the

petitioner has been nominated as an accused on the basis of a disclosure

statement of one Taiyab Khan, who has already been allowed regular bail by

this Court in CRM-M No.2014 of 2020 vide order dated 10.08.2020. He

would also rely upon the judgment of Coordinate Bench passed in CRM-M

No.45029 of 2018 titled as Roshan Kumar and another Vs. State of

Haryana on 31.02.2019 wherein it has been held that being in possession of

ganja leaves would not construe any offence under the NDPS Act.

Learned counsel appearing for the respondent-State opposes

grant of bail to the petitioner by contending that the judgment as relied upon

by the petitioner would not be applicable to the facts of the present case,

1 of 2

since the report received from forensic science laboratory Haryana,

Madhuban, Karnal shows that ganja leaves were fruiting and therefore,

would fall under the NDPS Act, however, she does not dispute the fact that

petitioner was nominated as an accused on the basis of statement given by a

co-accused, who is already on bail.

I have heard learned counsel for the parties. Keeping in view

the fact that the petitioner has been nominated in the FIR on the basis of a

disclosure statement made by a co-accused, who has already been granted

concession of regular bail by this High Court and the trial is likely to take

some time to conclude, no useful purpose would be served in keeping the

petitioner behind bars. The instant petition is allowed and the petitioner is

directed to be released on regular bail on execution of adequate personal/

surety bond to the satisfaction of concerned trial Court/Duty Magistrate.

However, any observation made herein shall not be construed to be an

expression on merits of the case.

                                               (JAISHREE THAKUR)
                                                     JUDGE
March 23, 2021
Pankaj*
                  Whether speaking/reasoned         Yes/No

                   Whether reportable               Yes/No




                                      2 of 2