[Cites 4, Cited by 0]

Punjab-Haryana High Court

Rakib Ali vs State Of Haryana on 24 April, 2026

Author: Rajesh Bhardwaj

Bench: Rajesh Bhardwaj

            CRM-M-21191-2026                          1




            222           IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
                                        AT CHANDIGARH

                                                                 CRM-M-21191-2026
                                                                 Date of Decision: 24.04.2026

            Rakib Ali                                                         ...Petitioner

                                                     Versus
            State of Haryana                                                  ...Respondent

            CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BHARDWAJ

            Present:           Mr. L.S. Sekhon, Advocate and
                               Ms. Sweedel Goyal, Advocate
                               for the petitioner.

                               Mr. Tanuj Sharma, A.A.G., Haryana.

            RAJESH BHARDWAJ, J. (ORAL)

1. Petitioner has approached this Court by way of present petition

praying for granting regular bail in case FIR No.37 dated 17.01.2024 under

Sections 22-C and 29 of the NDPS Act, registered at Police Station Sector 32-

33, Karnal, District Karnal.

2. Succinctly, facts of the case are that secret information was

received while the police party was on patrolling that one Suresh is involved in

selling the intoxicating pills and if raid is conducted, he can be arrested along

with the contraband. Finding the information received to be reliable, the Police

party constituted a raiding team. Raid was conducted and Suresh was

apprehended along with the contraband. On his search, 48 capsules were

recovered from his possession. The samples were taken and sent to the FSL.

On receiving the FSL report, the contraband was found to be weighing 27

grams of Tramadol Hydrochloride. During the investigation, Suresh disclosed

about Pankaj to be the supplier of the contraband and Pankaj disclosed about

involvement of Anil Sharma as the main supplier and from whom recovery of

1920 capsules of Tramadol Hydrochloride, was effected. Thereafter, Anil

Sharma made a disclosure about involvement of the present petitioner being

the main supplier of the contraband. Thus, the petitioner was also arrayed as

an accused and resultantly, arrested on 01.03.2024. Investigation commenced.

Samples taken were sent to FSL. Challan was presented and after framing of

charges, trial commenced. The petitioner approached learned Additional

Sessions Judge-Cum-Exclusive Court, Karnal for grant of bail, however,

finding no merit, the same was declined after hearing both the sides by

Learned trial Court vide order dated 29.11.2025. Aggrieved by the same, the

petitioner has approached this Court by way of filing of present petition

praying for the grant of regular bail.

3. It has been contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that

the petitioner has been falsely and frivolously implicated in this case. The

total recovery in the present case is 1067 grams of Tramadol

Hydrochloride, which was effected from accused persons namely, Suresh

and Anil Sharma. He submits that the petitioner has been implicated in the

present case on the basis disclosure statement of co-accused, namely, Anil

Sharma. He submits that neither the petitioner was named in the FIR nor any

recovery has been effected from him. To buttress his arguments, he has

submitted that even otherwise, the disclosure statement is not even an

admissible evidence. He further submits that co-accused, namely, Pankaj, Anil

Sharma (from whom the recovery was effected) and Sarif @ Sarif Rajpur @

Gopal, have already been granted bail by this Court vide orders dated

23.07.2024 passed in CRM-M-18950-2024, 02.09.2025 passed in CRM-M-

28823-2025, 21.11.2025 passed in CRM-M-52564-2025. He thus, submits that

in the overall facts and circumstances, the petitioner deserves to be granted

bail.

4. Per contra, learned State counsel has opposed the submissions

made by the counsel for the petitioner. The total recovery in the present case is

1067 grams of Tramadol Hydrochloride, which was effected from accused

persons namely, Suresh and Anil Sharma which falls under commercial

quantity and thus, provisions of Section 37 of NDPS Act, are attracted in the

present case. He submits that the petitioner has been implicated in the present

case on the basis disclosure statement of co-accused, namely, Anil Sharma,

being the main supplier of contraband, however, endorsed the fact that Anil

Sharma has already been granted bail by this Court vide order dated

02.09.2025 passed in CRM-M-28823-2025. He has produced the custody

certificate of the petitioner on record.

5. On hearing counsel for the parties and perusing the record, it is

deciphered that the petitioner in the present case was arrayed as an accused on

the basis of disclosure statement of the co-accused, Anil Sharma. The total

recovery in the present case is 1067 grams of Tramadol Hydrochloride, which

was effected from accused persons namely, Suresh and Anil Sharma. Co-

accused, are already on bail granted bail by this Court vide orders dated

23.07.2024 passed in CRM-M-18950-2024, 02.09.2025 passed in CRM-M-

28823-2025, 21.11.2025 passed in CRM-M-52564-2025. As per custody

certificate, the petitioner has suffered an incarceration of 02 years, 01 month

and 05 days as on 23.04.2026. It further reflects that the petitioner is involved

in one more case.

6. The veracity of the allegations would be assessed only after the

conclusion of the trial and on the appreciation of evidence to be led by both the

parties before the trial Court.

7. In view of the facts and circumstances of the present case, this

Court cannot ignore the fact that the speedy trial is the fundamental right of

every accused. As held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Mohd Muslim @

Hussain Vs. State (NCT of Delhi), 2023 LiveLaw(SC)260, this Court is of the

opinion that the case of the petitioner is covered by the ratio of law laid down

by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. In the abovesaid case Hon'ble Supreme Court

expressed its views as under:-

19. A plain and literal interpretation of the conditions under Section 37 (i.e., that Court should be satisfied that the accused is not guilty and would not commit any offence) would effectively exclude grant of bail altogether, resulting in punitive detention and unsanctioned preventive detention as well. Therefore, the only manner in which such special conditions as enacted under Section 37 can be considered within constitutional parameters is where the court is reasonably satisfied on a prima facie look at the material on record (whenever the bail application is made) that the accused is not guilty. Any other interpretation, would result in complete denial of the bail to a person accused of offences such as those enacted under Section 37 of the NDPS Act.

20. xxxxx

21. .....it would be important to reflect that laws which impose stringent conditions for grant of bail, may be necessary in public interest; yet, if trials are not concluded in time, the injustice wrecked on the individual is immeasurable.

22. xxxxx

23. There is a further danger of the prisoner turning to crime, "as crime not only turns admirable, but the more professional the crime, more honour is paid to the criminal"22 (also see Donald

Clemmer's 'The Prison Community' published in 194023).

Incarceration has further deleterious effects - where the accused belongs to the weakest economic strata: immediate loss of livelihood, and in several cases, scattering of families as well as loss of family bonds and alienation from society. The courts therefore, have to be sensitive to these aspects (because in the event of an acquittal, the loss to the accused is irreparable), and ensure that trials - especially in cases, where special laws enact stringent provisions, are taken up and concluded speedily.

8. This Court would refrain itself from commenting anything on the

merits of the case. The trial of the case will take sufficient long time. Thus,

keeping in view the arguments raised by both the sides, this Court is of the

opinion that learned counsel for the petitioner succeeds in making out a case

for grant of regular bail to the petitioner on the basis of parity.

9. Accordingly, the present petition is allowed and the petitioner is

ordered to be released on bail on his furnishing bail/surety bonds to the

satisfaction of the concerned trial Court/Duty Magistrate. Nothing said herein

shall be treated as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case.

10. In case the bail bonds are not furnished by the petitioner during

the period of 07 days from today, then his further custody period after one

week will not be counted in the present case.