[Cites 1, Cited by 0]
Punjab-Haryana High Court
Rohit Yadav vs State Of Punjab on 11 March, 2026
CRM-M-41226-2025 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
115
CRM-M-41226-2025
Decided on : 11.03.2026
ROHIT YADAV
......Petitioner
Versus
STATE OF PUNJAB
......Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY VASHISTH
Present: Mr. Arun Sharma, Advocate,
for the petitioner.
Mr. Neeraj Madaan, Sr. DAG, Punjab.
****
SANJAY VASHISTH, J.
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 District
Petitioner(s) No. Station
Rohit Yadav 293 22.09.2023 21, 21(C), STF Phase Mohali
29 of IV
NDPS Act
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that, as per the
case of prosecution, FIR was registered on the basis of secret information
received against accused Rakesh Arora and Rohit Yadav (petitioner
herein).
During the course of investigation, a Honda City car, bearing
registration No.DL-3-CBE-2685 was intercepted, in which both the
accused persons were travelling. The car was being driven by co-accused
Rakesh Arora @ Kaka, while petitioner-Rohit Yadav was occupying the
adjoining seat.
Upon conducting search of the vehicle, 513 grams of ICE
drug (Amphetamine) was allegedly recovered from underneath the
driver's seat of the aforesaid Honda City car.
3. Counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner is in
judicial custody since 22.09.2023, i.e., for a period of about 02 years, 05
months and 13 days. It is further argued that petitioner, aged about 32
years, has never been found involved in any other similar activity.
Petitioner is primarily a resident of Delhi and had merely accompanied
his friend on a visit to Punjab.
It is further submitted that petitioner has no previous
criminal antecedents and no other criminal case of any nature has ever
been registered against him.
4. Learned counsel further submits that, out of total 13
prosecution witnesses, 5 witnesses are yet to be examined in the present
case. Consequently, conclusion of the trial is likely to take a considerable
amount of time. Thus, counsel prays for grant of regular bail to the
petitioner in the present case.
5. In response to the arguments addressed by learned counsel
for the petitioner, learned State counsel, produces the custody certificate
dated 10.03.2026 in Court today, which is taken on record. Office to tag
the same at appropriate place. A copy thereof has been handed over to the
counsel for the petitioner.
As per the custody certificate, in the present case, petitioner
has already undergone 02 years 05 months and 13 days period inside jail
and there is no other case registered against him.
6. Learned State counsel is unable to dispute any of the factual
assertion as stated by counsel for the petitioner today before this Court.
However, he prays for dismissal of the present petition.
7. This Court has heard the submissions addressed by learned
counsel for the parties and has also perused the record available before it.
8. Admittedly, recovery in the present case has been effected
from underneath the driver's seat of the Honda City car, which was being
driven and was in the control of co-accused Rakesh Arora @ Kaka.
Petitioner was merely occupying the adjoining seat. Whether the
petitioner was in conscious possession of the contraband or had any
knowledge thereof, is a matter which is yet to be determined by the trial
Court, after appreciation of the entire evidence to be adduced before it.
Since petitioner is a first-time offender, his continued
incarceration for an indefinite period would not be justified. He deserves
to be afforded an opportunity to reintegrate into society.
9. In view of the totality of the circumstances, nature of the
allegations levelled against the petitioner, and the factors noticed here
above, 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)
JUDGE
11.03.2026
Lavisha
Whether Speaking/Reasoned: YES/NO
Whether Reportable: YES/NO
