Punjab-Haryana High Court
Sher Singh Alias Shera vs State Of Haryana on 27 November, 2025
CRM-M-39304-2025 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
225 CRM-M-39304-2025
Decided on :27.11.2025
Sher Singh alias Shera . . . Petitioner(s)
Versus
State of Haryana . . . Respondent(s)
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY VASHISTH
Present: Mr. Manav Sharma, Advocate for
Mr. Partap Singh, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. Varun Gupta, DAG, Haryana.
****
SANJAY VASHISTH, J. (Oral)
1. Petitioner-Sher Singh @ Shera, has filed instant second
petition under Section 439 Cr.P.C./483 BNSS, seeking regular bail in case
FIR No. 0145, dated 12.07.2020, under Section 18 of NDPS Act,
registered at Police Station Cheeka, District Kaithal.
2. The first petition filed by petitioner was dismissed by the
co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 27.08.2024 (P-9) passed
in CRM-M-25207-2024.
3. For filing the instant second bail petition, learned counsel
for the petitioner submits that the earlier bail application was primarily
dismissed because the petitioner was involved in other cases as well.
Counsel explains that in two of these cases, namely: i) FIR No. 63 dated
23.03.2018, under Sections 18, 61/85 of the NDPS Act, registered at
Police Station Cheeka, Kaithal; and ii) FIR No. 284 dated 14.11.2016,
1 of 6
under Sections 15/18/29-61/85 of the NDPS Act, registered at Police
Station Cheeka, petitioner earned acquittal vide judgments dated
30.10.2025 and 14.08.2025 respectively. Accordingly, his claim for bail
now stands on a stronger footing, coupled with the fact that he has
already undergone more than three years of incarceration period without
the charges being proved.
4. In view of the circumstances explained by counsel, this
Court proceeds to consider the plea for bail afresh.
5. As per the allegations, FIR was registered on receipt of
secret information to the effect that accused, Ramesh Kumar, Ashok
Kumar, and Sher Singh @ Shera ( petitioner herein), is engaged in the
sale and purchase of opium, and that all three could be apprehended
along with a substantial quantity of opium if a raid is conducted. It was
further disclosed that all three were together riding a motorcycle bearing
registration No. HR64-4232. Upon receiving this information, accused
were intercepted; however, Ramesh Kumar was apprehended on the spot,
whereas the other two managed to flee.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner argues that, on the basis
of the disclosure statement of the already-arrested accused-Ramesh
Kumar, 30 kgs of opium were recovered from the house of Ramesh
Kumar and 1 kg of opium from the right pocket of his pants at the time of
arrest, totalling 31 kgs recovered from Ramesh Kumar.
7. Counsel further refers to the order dated 03.04.2024 (P-6)
passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Criminal Appeal No. 777 of 2024,
2 of 6
whereby Ramesh Kumar was granted bail, noticing his total period of
incarceration of four years. Counsel also contends that other co-accused,
namely Sandeep Kumar Dangi, Manoj Dangi, Major Singh, and Pritpal
Singh @ Preet Pal Singh, have already been released on bail by the co-
ordinate Bench of this Court vide orders dated 05.07.2024, 02.08.2024,
27.02.2025, and 12.07.2023/22.04.2025 respectively. However, their
names were not mentioned in the FIR, and they were implicated as
suppliers solely based on disclosure statements subsequent to the arrest of
other accused.
8. Mr. Manav Sharma, Advocate, argues that petitioner was
arrested on 11.09.2022; however, except for Rs. 10,000/-, claimed by the
prosecution to be "drug money," no contraband punishable under the
NDPS Act was recovered from petitioner's possession. Therefore, it lies
heavily upon the prosecution to prove the authenticity of the secret
information and to establish the petitioner's involvement in the case, in
the absence of any evidence apart from the non-authenticated secret
information and disclosure statements. The position would have been
different had any narcotic substance been recovered from the petitioner.
9. Counsel also submits that out of three other cases registered
against the petitioner, he has already been acquitted in two, as mentioned
above. In the third case, i.e., FIR No. 118 dated 01.07.2018, under
Sections 18/61/85 NDPS Act, registered at Police Station Guhla, Kaithal,
which is the subject matter of CRA-S-585-2019, petitioner was
convicted by the learned trial court; however, his sentence was suspended
3 of 6
by the co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 13.11.2019 (P-
13).
As of now, the only pending trial against the petitioner is the
instant case, in which, as a matter of fact, no contraband or substance
punishable under the NDPS Act has been recovered from him.
Accordingly, the petitioner prays for the grant of bail.
10. On the other hand, learned State counsel has filed the
custody certificate, same is taken on record.
As per the custody certificate, petitioner is in custody in the
present case for a period of three years, two months, and nine days. Apart
from the instant case, petitioner is also involved in three other cases, the
details of which have already been explained by the counsel for the
petitioner and have not been disputed by the learned State counsel.
11. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have
carefully perused the paper-book, along with the documents appended
thereto, including the custody certificate.
12. It is not a disputed fact that nothing was recovered from the
possession of the petitioner following his arrest on 11.09.2022, except for
an amount of Rs. 10,000/-. Apart from naming the petitioner by the
alleged secret informant, no other evidence has been pointed out by the
State during the course of the hearing.
The only other material on record is the CDR, which
contains details of calls between the main accused, Ramesh Kumar, and
the petitioner prior to the registration of the case. This Court is not
4 of 6
required to delve into the nature or reasons for these telephonic
conversations. Undoubtedly, the prosecution is required to prove all
charges beyond reasonable doubt.
Petitioner is in custody for more than three years. Out of a
total of 39 prosecution witnesses, only 22 have been examined and 17 yet
to be examined. Although the quantity of contraband recovered is
substantial, it was recovered solely based on the disclosure statement of
main accused-Ramesh Kumar, who has already been released on bail by
the Hon'ble Apex Court vide its order dated 03.04.2024 (P-6).
Considering all circumstances in their entirety, this Court
finds merit in the prayer of the petitioner.
Consequently, present petition stands allowed. Petitioner is
ordered to be released on bail, subject to his furnishing bail/surety bonds
to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court/ Chief Judicial
Magistrate/Illaqa Magistrate/ Duty Magistrate concerned, if not required
in any other case.
13. Any of the discussion done and recorded hereabove, shall
not be construed as an expression of opinion on the facts of the case.
Therefore, trial Court is expected to decide the case by taking an
independent view, on the basis of evidence available on record, as
expeditiously as possible in accordance with law.
14. It is further made clear that if, in future, the petitioner is
found to be directly involved in similar activities, the prosecution would
be at liberty to seek cancellation of bail.
5 of 6
15. Petition stands disposed of.
(SANJAY VASHISTH)
JUDGE
27.11.2025
Rashmi
Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No
Whether Reportable: Yes/No
6 of 6
