Tinku Sharma vs State Of Haryana
2025 Latest Caselaw 4972 P&H

Punjab-Haryana High Court

Tinku Sharma vs State Of Haryana on 11 November, 2025

CRM-M-15840-2025                                                             1

             IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA
                       AT CHANDIGARH
273-2
                                              CRM-M-15840-2025
                                              Date of decision: 11.11.2025

Tinku Sharma                                                 ...Petitioner
                                 Versus
State of Haryana                                             ...Respondent

CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE AARADHNA SAWHNEY

Present :    Mr. R.K. Choudhary, Advocate for the petitioner.

       Mr. Vishal Singh, AAG, Haryana.
            *****
AARADHNA SAWHNEY, J.(ORAL)

1. By virtue of the present petition under Section 483 BNSS,

petitioner, an accused in case bearing FIR No. 116 dated 01.05.2023

registered against him, for commission of offences punishable under Section

20 (b) (ii) (c) of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances, Act 1985

(Section 29 of NDPS Act and Section 201 IPC added later on) at Police

Station Mundkati, District Palwal, has prayed for grant of bail.

2. In nutshell, the case that has been set up is that on 30.04.2023 a

police party headed by ASI Ashok Kumar was present at old Tumsera Toll

at Mathura Delhi Road, while carrying a laptop, printer, electronic weighing

machine etc, when they received a secret information that one Rajinder

would be hiding 'Ganja Patti' in the goods loaded in Canter bearing No.HR

55X 9426 (Eicher Canter) and would be crossing the area around 06:30 P.M.

Relying on the information raiding party was prepared. Senior Police

officers were intimated. When the raiding team saw an Eicher Canter

coming from Hodal side, the driver was signalled to stop, who introduced

himself as Rajinder son of Saamal, resident of Bajota, P.S. Tappal, District

Aligarh. Requisite statutory formalities were complied with. Several plastic

1 of 8

bags (in all 28) were found hidden inside the plyboards stacked in the rear

body of the Canter. 480 Kg of Ganja Patti is said to have been recovered

from those 28 bags. After the FIR was lodged, aforementioned Rajinder was

interrogated who disclosed the names of the other accused namely Tinku

Sharma @ Pandit (present petitioner) Sunder, Birre @ Birham and Kalu @

Ram Charan as his accomplice.

On 04.05.2023, co-accused Sundar son of Samal, co-accused

Kalu @ Ram Charan, resident of Barsana UP were arrested.

It is in the disclosure statement of co-accused Kalu @ Ram

Charan, that name of the present petitioner namely Tinku Sharma and others

involved in the offence cropped up. Record with regard to the ownership of

the Eicher Canter was obtained which revealed that the vehicle is registered

in the name of one Sunder Saini, son of Bihari. On 28.07.2023, present

petitioner-Tinku Sharma was taken on production warrants from Odisha

where he was confined in another criminal case and was joined in the

investigation. He also confessed to his involvement and got recovered

Samsung Mobile phone used by him in the commission of offence.

On 30.09.2023, co-accused Brahm Singh @ Birre was arrested.

Mobile phone handsets recovered from the possession of the accused, who

were arrested, were taken into possession.

On 15.03.2024, co-accused Ajeet, son of Krishan, resident of

Gunthi, Bahrod, Rajasthan was arrested.

On 17.03.2024 co-accused Anand Mishra, who had allegedly

supplied the contraband to co-accused Ram Charan, Tinku Sharma etc, was

arrested.

CAF, CDR etc. of the mobile phones, recovered at the instance

2 of 8

of all the accused who were arrested, alongwith certificate under Section 65

B of Indian Evidence Act were also collected and sent to DITAC Gurugram

for examination. The report is still awaited.

On culmination of investigation challan was filed against

petitioner and co-accused Rajender, Sundar, Tinku Sharma, Ramcharan,

Ajeet Kumar and Braham Singh on 15.12.2023. Thereafter, second challan

was filed on 06.09.2024.

Bail application of the present petitioner was dismissed by the

learned Additional Sessions Judge Palwal in terms of order dated

25.02.2025. Aggrieved of the same, present petition has been filed.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner has

been falsely implicated, he was never found at the spot, nor any recovery

was effected from him. He (petitioner) was nominated as an accused on the

basis of string of disclosure statements made by the other accused. These

disclosure statements are not admissible in evidence, being confessional in

nature made before the police authorities, in view of Section 25 of the Indian

Evidence Act. Further the falsity of the case set up by the prosecution is

apparent from the fact that despite the alleged recovery of contraband was

effected from busy public place, however for reasons best known no efforts

were made to join any independent person as a 'witness' to the case

proceedings.

It is further the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner

that likelihood of completion of trial in the near future is quite remote, thus,

further incarceration of petitioner in custody, would not serve any useful

purpose and would also be violative of the fundamental rights guaranteed

under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. Prayer for allowing the petition

3 of 8

has been made.

4. Opposing the petition, learned State Counsel submits that

petitioner has been specifically named by the other accused, as the person at

whose instance the contraband was being transported from Odessa to

Rajasthan. Even otherwise he has questionable past antecedents, being

involved in three cases of the like nature (the details of which are mentioned

in para No.20 of the Status report filed by way of affidavit of Shri Kuldeep

Singh, Deputy Superintendent of Police, Hodal, District Palwal). In view of

the quantity of the contraband recovered from the co-accused arrested at the

site, as per learned State counsel the rigors of Section 37 of NDPS Act are

attracted which bar the grant of bail, unless the twin conditions prescribed in

the provision are satisfied. As per the case of prosecution, petitioner being

the focal point and also having remained involved in similar cases, it cannot

be presumed that he is not involved in the offence or that he is not likely to

commit the offence again, if extended the concession of bail. Dismissal of

the petition has been prayed for.

5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone

through the documents on record.

6. Admittedly, the petitioner was not arrested at the site, neither

any recovery was effected from him. Name of the petitioner cropped up in

the disclosure statement of the co-accused, the admissibility and reliability

of the said statement is a question which would be decided during the course

of trial based on the evidence adduced on the case file. It has been noticed

that the petitioner is involved in other cases, but nothing has come on record

from where it can be inferred that he stands convicted in any one of those

cases. Further, the Status report reveals that the challan against the co-

4 of 8

accused Ajit and Anand Mishra was submitted on 06.09.2024. Out of total

31 prosecution witnesses none has been examined till date, thus, the

completion of trial in the near future is quite remote.

At this stage it would also be appropriate to refer to judgment

of Hon'ble Supreme Court wherein case titled as Shambu Lal Gurjar Vs.

State of Rajasthan, SLP Criminal 16671 of 2024, decided on 23.04.2024, it

was held as under:-

"The allegations against the petitioner is that there is a recovery of 60 kgs poppy husk/straw (contraband article) from him and prior to this incident, he has three criminal antecedents relating to the NDPS Act registered in the year 2019, 2021 and 2022. The third bail application of the petitioner was dismissed by the High Court. He has already undergone about 1 year and 8 months in jail.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the respondent State.

Considering the fact that the contraband article is a poppy straw although he has three criminal antecedents but since he has been in jail for the last 1 year and 8 months, we are of the opinion that a case of bail is made out for the petitioner."

Further in Chitta Bishwas @ Shubash Vs. State of West Bengal

Law Finder Doc Id# 1938935, considering the duration of custody and

progress in trial, Hon'ble Supreme Court granted bail to an

accused/appellant who was found in possession of 46 bottles of

PHENSYDRYL Cough Syrup containing codeine mixture above

commercial quantity.

In Md Aliul Islam @ Aliul Islam @ Aliul Vs. State of West

Bengal Law Finder Doc Id# 2734487, Hon'ble Supreme Court granted bail

5 of 8

to an accused, involved in a case under Section 21(c)/27A of NDPS,

considering custody period and similarity with other accused, whose bail had

been allowed.

Similarly on the ground of prolonged custody and parity with

co-accused, petitioner who was allegedly caught keeping in his possession

290 bottles of PHENSYDRYL Cough Syrup (Commercial quantity) in

Devrata Mondal Vs. State of West Bengal Law Doc Finder Id # 2734476,

was granted the concession of bail by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. In

Santarul Islam Vs. State of West Bengal, Law Finder Doc Id# 2735329,

Hon'ble Supreme Court granted bail to the petitioner who was also caught

keeping in his illegal possession of PHENSYDRYL Cough Syrup (on the

ground of prolonged custody and nature of contraband).

When appreciated in the light of the facts that have been

brought on record, the Court is of the opinion that no useful purpose would

be served by further detention of the petitioner, as the same, without the

prospect of trial being concluded in the near future, would be violative of his

rights under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, including right to speedy

trial and would, thus, also be against the principle of "Bail is a general rule

and incarceration is an exception" as held by Hon'ble Supreme Court in

Dataram vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and another, 2018(2) R.C.R.

(Criminal) 131.

It is thus clear that criminal antecedents are also not legal

grounds to deny the rigors of Section 37 of NDPS Act this stage.

Considering that out of 31 prosecution witnesses none has been examined

till date, thus the completion of trial is likely to take time, the fact that the

name of the petitioner cropped in the disclosure statement of the accused, as

6 of 8

also giving due weightage to the nature of contraband recovered i.e. Ganja,

the fact that the other accused namely Ram Charan @ Kalu (on whose

disclosure statement the name of the present petitioner cropped up),as also

co-accused Sundar and Rajinder both sons of Samal, residents of Bajota

have been granted the concession of bail, present petitioner is also granted

the concession of bail subject to his furnishing bail/surety bonds to the

satisfaction of learned trial Court/Duty Magistrate concerned. The petitioner

shall abide by the following conditions:-

(i) The petitioner shall not leave the country without prior permission of the trial Court and shall deposit the passport in the trial Court.

(ii) The petitioner will not tamper with the evidence during the trial.

(iii) The petitioner will not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witnesses.

(iv) The petitioner will appear before the trial Court on each and every date fixed, unless is exempted by a specific order of Court.

(v) The petitioner shall not commit an offence similar to the offence of which, he is an accused, or for commission of which he is suspected of.

(vi) The petitioner shall not directly or indirectly coerce, induce, threaten or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him/her from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence in any manner.

(vii) The petitioner shall not in any manner misuse his liberty.

(viii) 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

7 of 8

Court, stating the reason for the same.

(ix) The trial Court/Duty Magistrate may impose any other condition, as deemed appropriate while releasing the petitioner.

7. Accordingly, the present petition is allowed and it is made 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.

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.

                                           (AARADHNA SAWHNEY)
                                                 JUDGE

11.11.2025
Hemant
             Whether speaking/reasoned         :       Yes / No
             Whether reportable                :       Yes / No




                                  8 of 8