[Cites 1, Cited by 0]
Punjab-Haryana High Court
Pawan Kumar vs State Of Haryana on 10 April, 2026
CRM-M-18200-2026 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
205
CRM-M-18200-2026
Decided on : 10.04.2026
Pawan Kumar
. . . Petitioner(s)
Versus
State of Haryana
. . . Respondent(s)
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY VASHISTH
Present : Mr. Shailender Singh, Advocate
for the petitioner(s).
Mr. Amish Sharma, AAG Haryana
****
SANJAY VASHISTH, J. (Oral)
1. The instant petition has been filed under Section 483 of BNSS, 2023
(earlier Section 439 Cr.P.C.), for grant of regular bail to the petitioner, during the
pendency of trial, who has been booked in a criminal case arising out of First
Information Report, as detailed hereunder:-
Name of FIR No. Date Section(s) Police Station District
Petitioner(s)
Pawan 85 08.03.2025 22(C) (Seciton 29 Bilaspur Yamuna Nagar
Kumar, aged added later on) of the
32 years NDPS Act
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that on 07.03.2025, a
secret informant conveyed specific information to the police that one Veerbhan @
Bhana was engaged in the illegal sale of intoxicant capsules and on that day, he
would be coming towards village Chhalour via village Rampur Kamboyan to sell
the said capsules. It was further informed that if a raid was conducted, the said
accused could be apprehended.
Acting upon the said information, the police party intercepted accused
Veerbhan @ Bhana, who was riding a Splendor motorcycle, bearing registration
No.HR-71H-5263. During the search, a black coloured polythene bag placed on
the fuel tank of the motorcycle was checked, from which five boxes of prohibited
intoxicant capsules, namely Acetaminophen, Tramadol HCL and Dicyclomine
HCL capsules (make: SPASPEACE) were recovered. Upon counting, total 1200
contraband capsules were found from the same.
3. As per the case of prosecution, during the course of investigation,
accused Veerbhan @ Bhana, in his disclosure statement, alleged that it was the co-
accused Sonu Kumar, who had supplied the said capsules to him.
That on being arrested Sonu Kumar (already on bail) disclosed the
name of present petitioner and, except of the second degree disclosure statement of
co-accused Sonu, there is no corroborative evidence.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that except of the
disclosure statement made by the co-accused Sonu, and certain call detail records
showing telephonic contact between the petitioner and the co-accused, there is no
other independent or corroborative evidence available with the prosecution to
connect the petitioner with the alleged offence.
It is further submitted that there is no material to show any deposit of
money in the bank account of the petitioner or any other transaction indicating his
involvement in the alleged illegal business of sale and purchase of narcotic drugs.
5. It is further submitted that petitioner is in custody since 25.09.2025,
i.e., for a period of 06 months and 13 days.
Learned counsel also contends that nothing remains to be recovered
from the possession of the petitioner and, therefore, his further detention is not
warranted. It is also argued that trial is likely to take a considerable time to
conclude and no useful purpose would be served by keeping the petitioner behind
bars during the pendency of the trial. He submits that co-accused Sonu Kumar
has already been granted bail by this Court vide order dated 05.03.2026 passed in
CRM-M-70475-2025. Thus, learned counsel prays that petitioner be granted the
concession of regular bail in the present case.
6. Learned State counsel, while opposing the prayer made by learned
counsel for the petitioner, refers to paragraph No.7 of the status report and submits
that petitioner, who was using mobile No.9760760803, was found to be in
telephonic contact with his coaccused, namely Sonu, using mobile No.
9813252464, during the period from 15.02.2025 to 07.03.2025.
For reference, paragraph No.7 of the status report filed in CRM-M-
70475-2025 is reproduced hereunder:-
"7. That during course of investigation call detail of accused Veer Bhan alias
Bhana having Mobile No. 9053544328 and Mobile No. 9813252464 of petitioner
and Mobile No. 9760760803 of accused Pawan Kumar for the period from 15-
02-2025 to 07-03-2025 were obtained and from perusal of the said call record, it
was found that the above named accused persons were in contact with each
other. As per CDR, petitioner talked with accused Veer Bhan 29 times, with
Pawan 47 times. The copy of call detail record of aforesaid mobile phones is
enclosed herewith for the period from 15-02-2025 to 07-03-2025 as Annexure R-
6, R-7 and R-8."
7. On the strength of the aforesaid status report, learned State counsel
submits that since petitioner is alleged to be part of supply chain, he does not
deserve the concession of regular bail.
8. This Court has heard the submissions addressed by learned counsel
for the parties and has also perused the record available before it.
9. Considering the totality of the circumstances, nature of the allegations
levelled against the petitioner, and the factors noticed here above, including the
fact that purpose for which the calls were allegedly made between the accused
persons is a matter to be examined during the course of trial, this Court does not
find any substantial reason to curtail the personal liberty of the petitioner any
longer. Accordingly, this Court deems it appropriate to grant the concession of
regular bail to the petitioner in the present case.
Consequently, prayer made in the present petition is 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.
10. Needless to observe that the petitioner shall not extend any threat and
shall not influence any prosecution witness in any manner directly or indirectly.
11. Any of the discussion done and recorded here above, 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.
12. It is further made clear that if, in future, petitioner is directly found
indulged in similar kind of activities, this order shall be deemed to be cancelled.
13. Petition stands disposed of.
(SANJAY VASHISTH)
April 10, 2026 JUDGE
reena
Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No
Whether Reportable: Yes/No
