[Cites 3, Cited by 0]
Punjab-Haryana High Court
Rahish vs State Of Haryana on 8 December, 2025
The present petition has been filed under Section 483 of
BNS, 2023 for the grant of regular bail to the petitioner in case FIR
No.240
240 dated 04.09.2024, registered at Police Station Chachrauli,
Yamuna Nagar, under Sections 21-C
C and 29 NDPS Act.
2. Reply by way of affidavit of the Deputy Superintendent of
Police, Yamuna Nagar-II,
Nagar II, filed in the Court, is taken on record.
3. Learned counsel contends that the petitioner is in custody for
the last about 4 months. His name surfaced based on disclosure statement
PARVEEN KUMAR
2025.12.08 18:20
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this
order/judgment.
of co-accused Pervej Khan @ Pebi, from whom recovery of contraband
marginally above the non-commercial quantity, it being 267 grams of
heroin, was effected. There is no recovery effected from the petitioner
and no evidence has also emerged to connect him to the case, but for the
aforesaid disclosure statement, which is inadmissible in the eyes of law as
per the judgment passed by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case of
Tofan Singh vs. State of Tamil Nadu, 2021 (1) RCR (Crl.) 1. Charges
stand framed on 03.11.2025, however, none out of 19 PWs has been
examined as yet. He is involved in 7 more cases wherein also, his name
was disclosed by the co-accused and the same pertain to the alleged
recovery of non-commercial quantity of contraband. Reliance is placed on
the judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Maulana Mohd. Amir
Rashadi vs. State of U.P. and others, 2012(2) SCC 382. He relies on the
order passed by Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Sandeep Kumar @
Gogi vs. State of Haryana in CRM-M-24505-2022 decided on
07.12.2022, wherein also the petitioner was implicated on the basis of
disclosure statement, no recovery had been effected from him, he was
involved in one more case under the NDPS Act.
4. The custody certificate dated 05.12.2025 has been filed by
learned State counsel, as per which the petitioner is behind bar since 3
months and 28 days.
5. Learned State counsel opposes the bail on the ground that
there are specific allegations against the petitioner by the co-accused, who
was apprehended at the spot alongwith commercial quantity of contraband.
PARVEEN KUMAR
2025.12.08 18:20
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this
order/judgment.
He is, however, unable to controvert the submissions with regard to stage
of the case and petitioner being involved in other cases by way of
disclosure statements.
6. Heard.
7. Hon'ble The Supreme Court in the case of Maulana Mohd.
Amir Rashadi (Supra)had held that, "As observed by the High Court,
merely on the basis of criminal antecedents, the claim of the second
respondent cannot be rejected. In other words, it is the duty of the Court to
find out the role of the accused in the case in which he has been charged
and other circumstances such as possibility of fleeing away from the
jurisdiction of the Court, etc." Reiterating in Prabhakar Tewari vs. State
of UP and another, (2020) 11 SCC 648, it was observed that, "The
offence alleged no doubt is grave and serious and there are several
criminal cases pending against the accused. These factors by themselves
cannot be the basis for refusal of prayer for bail."
8. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, in
particular that the petitioner is in custody for the last 3 months and 28
days; being involved in other cases on the basis of disclosure statement(s),
charges were framed on 03.11.2025, prosecution evidence has to
commence; in all there are 19 PWs; trial is likely to take a considerable
time, thus his further incarceration would not serve any useful purpose,
the present petition for grant of regular bail deserves to be allowed.
9. As a result, the present petition is allowed. The petitioner is
ordered to be released on regular bail, subject to his furnishing bail/surety
bonds to the satisfaction of trial Court/Duty Magistrate concerned and
subject to his not being required in any other case. The petitioner shall
abide by the following conditions:-
(vii) The petitioner shall furnish his address and
mobile number to the Trial Court forthwith and
shall not change the same till the conclusion of
the trial and in case for any reason, the
petitioner seeks to change any of the aforesaid,
the same shall be done only with prior
intimation to the learned Trial Court, stating the
reason for the same.
10. It is made abundantly clear that in case there is any breach of
the aforesaid conditions, the State shall be at liberty to seek cancellation
of bail as granted to the petitioner by this order.
11. In view of the above, it is clarified that the observations
made herein are limited for the purpose of present proceedings and would
not be construed as an opinion on the merits of the case and the trial
would proceed independently of the aforesaid observations.
