[Cites 14, Cited by 0]
Punjab-Haryana High Court
Pawan Kumar vs State Of Haryana on 12 March, 2026
CRM-M-9999-2026 -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
239 CRM-M-9999-2026
Date of Decision: 12.03.2026
Pawan Kumar ....Petitioner
Versus
State of Haryana ....Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE RUPINDERJIT CHAHAL
Present: Mr. S.S.Sahu, Advocate
for the petitioner.
Ms. Shaveta Sanghi, DAG, Haryana.
*****
RUPINDERJIT CHAHAL, J (ORAL)
1. Prayer in the instant petition filed under Section 483 of the
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 is for grant of regular bail to the
petitioner in case FIR No.198 dated 16.08.2025 registered under Sections
17(C), 27(A), 29, 61, 85 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances
Act, 1985, at Police Station Ding, District Sirsa.
2. Brief facts of the present case are that as per the prosecution, on
16.08.2025, ASI Sumit Kumar, along with his fellow police officials was on
patrolling duty and on the basis of secret information, apprehended two
persons, namely, Sumit Kumar and Rajesh Kumar and upon checking their
car, 2 Kg. 696 grams opium was recovered. Hence, the present FIR.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has
been falsely implicated in the present case and he has no concern with the said
offence. He argues that neither the petitioner was present at the spot nor was
named in the FIR. It has also been contended that the petitioner was
authenticity of this order/judgment
nominated as an accused on the basis of disclosure statement made by co-
accused that it was the petitioner who received ₹10 Lakhs in cash at Delhi in
a Hawala office after matching a token note. Apart from the disclosure
statement, there is no other evidence to connect the petitioner with the offence
in question and it is a trite law that disclosure statement of co-accused during
his custodial interrogation is not admissible. He submits that section 27-A
NDPS Act has been mechanically invoked. He argues that as per the
prosecution, recovery has already been effected from the co-accused and
nothing more is to be recovered from him. The petitioner is in custody since
30.08.2025. The investigation in the present case is complete and challan has
been filed, however charges are yet to be framed. He further submits that trial
will take a long time to conclude and no useful purpose would be served by
keeping him behind bars. Therefore, it is urged that the petition deserves to
be allowed.
4. On the other hand, learned State counsel has filed the status
report in the matter, which is taken on record and relying upon the same, she
has vehemently opposed the prayer for grant of bail by submitting that the
offence committed by the petitioner is serious in nature. She further submitted
that the petitioner is not a mere bystander but is an active financier and integral
conspirator of the narcotic trafficking network. During investigation, it has
been revealed that the petitioner arranged and facilitated the hawala
transactions amounting to ₹10 Lakhs which was specifically meant for
procurement of the recovered contraband i.e. 2 Kg. 696 grams of opium. She
further submitted that the petitioner was the office-bearer of Hawala
transactions based at Chandni Chowk, Delhi. The petitioner had received ₹10
Lakhs from co-accused Sunil Kumar @ Bachi and provided him ₹1 currency
authenticity of this order/judgment
note as token for the transaction. She submitted that the same currency note
was later recovered from co-accused Sunil @ Bachi. She further submitted
that the mobile phone recovered from the petitioner contains incriminating
communications relating to coordination of illegal transactions and movement
of drugs proceeds. Thus, the petitioner acted as the financial facilitator as the
link between suppliers and carriers of contraband, and thus, his role clearly
attracts offences under section 27-A and 29 of NDPS Act. She thus argued that
the role attributed to the petitioner is grave, specific and supported by material
evidence collected during the investigation and prayed that the present petition
lacks merit and be dismissed.
5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone
through the record of the case with their able assistance.
The investigation reveals that
the petitioner arranged and facilitated hawala transactions amounting to ₹10
Lakhs, which were specifically meant for the procurement of the recovered
contraband. It has further been alleged that the petitioner was functioning as
an office-bearer involved in hawala transactions operating from Chandni
Chowk, Delhi. As per the prosecution, the petitioner had received the said
amount of ₹10 Lakhs from co-accused Sunil Kumar @ Bachi and provided
him with a ₹1 currency note as a token for the transaction, which was later
authenticity of this order/judgment
recovered from the said co-accused, thereby establishing a link between the
petitioner and the other accused persons involved in the illicit transaction. The
prosecution has further pointed out that the mobile phone recovered from the
petitioner allegedly contains incriminating communications relating to the
coordination of illegal financial transactions and movement of proceeds
arising out of narcotic trafficking. In these circumstances, the role attributed
to the petitioner is that of a financial facilitator acting as a link between the
suppliers and carriers of the contraband, thereby attracting the provisions of
Sections 27-A and 29 of the NDPS Act. At this stage, this Court cannot lose
sight of the fact that the alleged recovery falls within the ambit of commercial
quantity, and therefore the rigours of Section 37 of the NDPS Act would apply.
The material placed on record by the prosecution prima facie suggests the
involvement of the petitioner in financing and facilitating the transaction
relating to the contraband in question. The role attributed to the petitioner
appears to be part of a larger conspiracy relating to narcotic trafficking and
cannot be brushed aside merely on the ground that the petitioner was not
present at the spot at the time of recovery.
7. It is well settled that while considering a petition for regular bail
in cases involving commercial quantity of contraband, the Court must be
satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for believing that the accused is not
guilty of the alleged offence and that he is not likely to commit any offence
while on bail. In the present case, in view of the material collected during the
investigation indicating the petitioner's role in facilitating the hawala
transaction for the procurement of the contraband, this Court is not satisfied
that the twin conditions as envisaged under Section 37 of the NDPS Act are
fulfilled. Reliance in this regard can be placed upon the decision of Hon'ble
authenticity of this order/judgment
Supreme Court in State of Kerala v. Rajesh, 2020 AIR (SC) 721; wherein it
was held that liberal approach in matter of bail under NDPS act is uncalled
for. It was also held that if either of twin conditions under Section 37 NDPS
Act is not satisfied, ban for granting bail operates. The relevant part of the
decision of Hon'ble Apex Court is as under:
"18. The jurisdiction of the Court to grant bail is circumscribed by the
provisions of Section 37 of the NDPS Act. It can be granted in case there
are reasonable grounds for believing that accused is not guilty of such
offence, and that he is not likely to commit any offence while on bail. It
is the mandate of the legislature which is required to be followed. At
this juncture, a reference to Section 37 of the Act is apposite. That
provision makes the offences under the Act cognizable and non-
bailable. It reads thus:-
"37. Offences to be cognizable and non-bailable.-(1) Notwithstanding
anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of
1974),-
(a) every offence punishable under this Act shall be cognizable;
(b) no person accused of an offence punishable for [offences under
section 19 or section 24 or section 27A and also for offences involving
commercial quantity] shall be released on bail or on his own bond
unless-
(i) the Public Prosecutor has been given an opportunity to oppose the
application for such release, and
(ii) where the Public Prosecutor opposes the application, the court is
satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for believing that he is not
guilty of such offence and that he is not likely to commit any offence
PUNEET SHARMA while on bail.
authenticity of this order/judgment
(2) The limitations on granting of bail specified in clause (b) of sub-
section (1) are in addition to the limitations under the Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), or any other law for the time being in force
on granting of bail."
(emphasis supplied)
19. This Court has laid down broad parameters to be followed while
considering the application for bail moved by the accused involved in
offences under NDPS Act. In Union of India v. Ram Samujh and Ors.
1999(4) RCR (Criminal) 93 : 1999(9) SCC 429, it has been elaborated
as under:-
"7. It is to be borne in mind that the aforesaid legislative mandate
is required to be adhered to and followed. It should be borne in
mind that in a murder case, the accused commits murder of one or
two persons, while those persons who are dealing in narcotic
drugs are instrumental in causing death or in inflicting death-blow
to a number of innocent young victims, who are vulnerable; it
causes deleterious effects and a deadly impact on the society; they
are a hazard to the society; even if they are released temporarily,
in all probability, they would continue their nefarious activities of
trafficking and/or dealing in intoxicants clandestinely. Reason
may be large stake and illegal profit involved. This Court, dealing
with the contention with regard to punishment under the NDPS
Act, has succinctly observed about the adverse effect of such
activities in Durand Didier v. Chief Secy., Union Territory of Goa
[1989(2) RCR (Criminal) 505 : (1990) 1 SCC 95)] as under:
24. With deep concern, we may point out that the organised
activities of the underworld and the clandestine smuggling of
authenticity of this order/judgment
narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances into this country and
illegal trafficking in such drugs and substances have led to drug
addiction among a sizeable section of the public, particularly the
adolescents and students of both sexes and the menace has
assumed serious and alarming proportions in the recent years.
Therefore, in order to effectively control and eradicate this
proliferating and booming devastating menace, causing
deleterious effects and deadly impact on the society as a whole,
Parliament in its wisdom, has made effective provisions by
introducing this Act 81 of 1985 specifying mandatory minimum
imprisonment and fine.
8. To check the menace of dangerous drugs flooding the market,
Parliament has provided that the person accused of offences under
the NDPS Act should not be released on bail during trial unless
the mandatory conditions provided in Section 37, namely,
(i) there are reasonable grounds for believing that the accused is
not guilty of such offence; and
(ii) that he is not likely to commit any offence while on bail are
satisfied. The High Court has not given any justifiable reason for
not abiding by the aforesaid mandate while ordering the release
of the respondent-accused on bail. Instead of attempting to take a
holistic view of the harmful socio-economic consequences and
health hazards which would accompany trafficking illegally in
dangerous drugs, the court should implement the law in the spirit
with which Parliament, after due deliberation, has amended."
20. The scheme of Section 37 reveals that the exercise of power to
grant bail is not only subject to the limitations contained under
authenticity of this order/judgment
Section 439 of the CrPC, but is also subject to the limitation
placed by Section 37 which commences with non-obstante clause.
The operative part of the said section is in the negative form
prescribing the enlargement of bail to any person accused of
commission of an offence under the Act, unless twin conditions are
satisfied. The first condition is that the prosecution must be given
an opportunity to oppose the application; and the second, is that
the Court must be satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for
believing that he is not guilty of such offence. If either of these two
conditions is not satisfied, the ban for granting bail operates."
8. Considering the seriousness of the allegations, the nature of the
offence, and the prima facie material available on record linking the petitioner
with the narcotic trafficking network, this Court does not find it to be a fit case
for grant of regular bail to the petitioner at this stage. Consequently, the
present petition is dismissed.
9. However, nothing observed herein shall be construed as an
expression of opinion on the merits of the case during trial.
(RUPINDERJIT CHAHAL)
12.03.2026 JUDGE
Puneet....
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No
Whether reportable : Yes/No
authenticity of this order/judgment
