[Cites 7, Cited by 0]
Punjab-Haryana High Court
Anil vs State Of Haryana on 16 January, 2026
CRM-M-36943-2025 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
205
CRM-M-36943-2025
Decided on : 16.01.2026
Anil
. . . Petitioner(s)
Versus
State of Haryana
. . . Respondent(s)
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY VASHISTH
PRESENT: Mr. Arnav Ghai, Advocate and
Mr. J.S. Salana, Advocate for the petitioner(s).
Mr. Kanwar Sanjiv Kumar, 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 Date Section(s) Police Station District
Petitioner(s) No.
Anil 241 12.07.2024 20(b)(ii)(C) of NDPS Act, 1985 City Sohana Gurugram
and Section 3(5) of BNS
2. Learned State counsel has filed status report dated 08.01.2026 in the
Court today and the same is taken on record. In advance, a copy of the same has
already been supplied to learned counsel for the petitioner.
3. As per the case of the prosecution, on 11.07.2024, two vehicles
bearing registration numbers HR29 AG 5789, boarded by accused Anil (petitioner
in CRM-M-36943-2025), and HR87 H 3539, boarded by Anish and Juber, were
1 of 5
intercepted. Upon search, a recovery of 97.7 kilograms of ganja was effected from
the i10 car occupied by Anil and Sahil. However, nothing was recovered from the
second car, which was occupied by the co accused Anish and Juber.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that co-accused Anish and
Juber, from whom nothing was recovered, have already been granted bail by a Co-
ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 29.04.2025 passed in CRM-M-
11525-2025 (P-6).
It is further contended that, as per the allegations, petitioner was
driving the i10 car from which the contraband was recovered, and that his co-
accused Sahil, who was occupying the same vehicle, has already been granted the
concession of bail by the Court of Sessions vide order dated 21.05.2025 (P-7).
Accordingly, learned counsel submits that the petitioner deserves the
concession of bail on the principle of parity, since co-accused Sahil, who was in
the same car, has already been released on bail
5. The Court has perused the status report dated 08.01.2026, which has
been filed in the Court today. The details of other criminal cases registered
against the petitioner are as under:
Sr. Details of FIR Recovered Status
No. contraband/quantity
(i) FIR No. 211/2021 Involved only on the basis of Trial is yet to be
under Section 20 and disclosure statement co- decided (Non
29 of NDPS Act at accused Sanjay Bhatia, commercial
PS Kotwali, recovered quantity was 5 Kg quantity)
Faridabad ganja patti
(ii) FIR No. 276/2021 3.5 Kg of ganja/patti re- Non-commercial
under Section 20 of covered from the boot space quantity and yet to
NDPS Act at PS of the car which was being be decided.
Dabua, Faridabad driven by the petitioner
(iii) FIR No. 277/2021 860 grams of ganja Acquitted vide
under Section 20 and judgment dated
29 of NDPS Act at 04.08.2025 passed
2 of 5
PS Dabua, Faridabad by JMIC, Faridabad
(Annexure P-10)
(iv) FIR No. 162/2021 Alleged recovery of 4 ½ Kg Yet to be decided.
under Section 20 and of ganja on the basis of
29 of NDPS Act at disclosure statement of co-
PS Saai Khwaja, accused Sandeep Chauhan
Faridabad
(v) FIR No. 90/2016 60 Kg of ganja, however, no Already on bail
under Section 20 and recovery effected from the
25 of NDPS Act, petitioner (as stated by
Central Bureau of counsel for the petitioner)
Narcotics, New
Delhi
(vi) FIR No. 630/2016 Recovery of arms Acquitted
under Section 25 of
Arms Act at PS
Saran, Faridabad
6. Thus, counsel for the petitioner argues that except of the present case,
in all other NDPS cases, either the petitioner found in possession of small quantity
or only the non-commercial quantity, in maximum number of cases, he was
involved only on the basis of disclosure statement. In two of the cases cited
hereinabove i.e. one under Arms Act and another under NDPS Act, the petitioner
has been acquitted vide judgment dated 04.08.2025 passed by JMIC, Faridabad.
Regarding the present case, learned counsel for the petitioner has
pointed out that all other co-accused, who were involved with the petitioner, have
already been released on bail. Further points that as per the Amended-disclosure
statement dated 13.07.2024, relied upon by the prosecution, an amount of
Rs. 9,70,000/- was paid in cash by co-accused Sahil to Mahesh, for bringing 100
Kg of Marijuna (ganja), thus, argues that as per the said disclosure statement, role
of co-accused Sahil is graver than of the petitioner, because no active role of being
possession of the contraband or of making payment, is even alleged to be against
the petitioner. Additionally, it is pointed out that the petitioner is inside jail for
3 of 5
the last more than a period of 01 year, 05 months and till date, out of 23
prosecution witnesses, only 01 has been examined. In these circumstances, prayer
is made for grant of regular bail.
7. On the other hand, learned State counsel has vehemently opposed the
prayer for bail. It is submitted that although the petitioner is not found involved in
many other case of similar nature, yet keeping in view the serious nature of
allegations, he does not deserve concession of bail. Learned State counsel,
however, does not dispute the factual assertions made by learned counsel for the
petitioner.
8. No doubt the bar under Section 37 of the Act should operate against
the petitioner, the prosecution itself is slow in moving with its proceedings before
the Court. The petitioner can not be detained inside jail for indefinite period
without any final adjudication of the trial.
Having heard learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the
record, this Court is of the view that plea of bail is worth considering more for the
reason that present one is the first case where the commercial quantity is alleged to
be recorded form the diggi of the car which was being driven by the petitioner.
However, all other accused have already been released on bail, including the one
who paid an amount of Rs. 9,70,000/- to Mahesh, from where the said contraband
was obtained. Moreover, only one prosecution witness has been examined for the
last more than a period of 01 year, 05 months,
9. 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.
4 of 5
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. The observation made here-in-above shall not be construed as an
expression of opinion on the facts of the case and the Trial Court is expected to
decide the case on the basis of complete evidence available on record.
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.
Misc. application(s), if any, also stand disposed of.
(SANJAY VASHISTH)
JUDGE
January 16, 2025
reena
Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No
Whether Reportable: Yes/No
5 of 5
