[Cites 6, Cited by 0]
Punjab-Haryana High Court
Ravi Kumar vs State Of Haryana on 17 March, 2026
Author: Rajesh Bhardwaj
Bench: Rajesh Bhardwaj
CRM-M-65335-2025 1
141
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CRM-M-65335-2025
Date of decision : 17.03.2026
Ravi Kumar ....Petitioner
versus
State of Haryana .....Respondent
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BHARDWAJ
Present :- Mr. Saurav Gumbal, Advocate,
Mr. Virendra Sagar, Advocate and
Mr. Sahil Choudhary, Advocate
for the petitioner.
Ms. Diya Sodhi, Sr. D.A.G., Haryana.
****
RAJESH BHARDWAJ, J. (Oral)
1. Present second petition has been filed for grant of regular bail
in case FIR No.433 dated 09.09.2024, under Sections 22-C & 29 of
Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, registered at
Police Station Sadar Yamuna Nagar, Haryana.
2. Succinctly the facts of the case are that the Police party while
on patrolling on 08.09.2024, received a secret information to the effect
that Ravi Kumar (present petitioner) would bring narcotic capsules and
narcotic pill from Uttar Pradesh and for selling them would go his home
in Tarawadi, through Bypass Naka Kalanaur Hishway, Yamunanagar and
if the barricading is laid, he could be arrested along with the contraband.
On receiving the information, barricading was laid at the place as
disclosed in the secret information. A person was seen coming on foot.
On seeing the police, he got perplexed and tried to turn back, however, he
was apprehended by the police party. On asking, he disclosed his name to
1 of 5
be Ravi Kumar (present petitioner). He was suspected to be carrying some
contraband, hence, searched was conducted. On conducting the search,
600 capsules containing Dicyclomine Hydrochloride Tramadol
Hydrochloride Acetaminophen, were recovered from the same. He failed
to produce any license regarding possession of the same and hence, the
FIR was registered and he was arrested on spot. The investigation
commenced. The samples taken were sent to the FSL. On receipt of FSL
report, challan was presented and on framing of charges, trial commenced.
The petitioner approached the Court of Learned Additional Sessions
Judge, Yamuna Nagar praying for grant of bail, however, finding no merit,
the same was declined after hearing both the sides by Learned trial Court
vide order dated 25.03.2025. Aggrieved by the same, petitioner earlier
approached this Court by way of filing of CRM-M-23898-2025 which
was dismissed as withdrawn on 22.08.2025. Hence, the petitioner is
before this Court by way of filing of present second petition for grant of
bail.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the
petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case. He submits that
the present case is based on the secret information, however, there is
violation of provisions of Section 42 of NDPS Act. He submits that the
alleged recovery has been effected from a public place, however,
conscious possession of the petitioner is not proved. He submits that there
is blatant violation of mandatory provisions of Section 50 of NDPS Act,
while conducting the search as the conscious possession was also not
proved. He submits that the petitioner is behind bars from last more than 1
½ years, however, there is no material progress in the trial. To buttress his
arguments, he submits that the petitioner has no criminal antecedents as he
2 of 5
has never been involved in any other case of similar nature. He thus,
submits that in the facts and circumstances of the case, the petitioner
deserves to be granted bail.
4. Per contra, learned State counsel has opposed the
submissions made by the counsel for the petitioner and submits that the
petitioner was specifically named in the secret information. She submits
that the petitioner was arrested along with the contraband. She submits
that on conducting the search, recovery of 600 capsules containing
Dicyclomine Hydrochloride Tramadol Hydrochloride Acetaminophen,
total weighing 345.75 grams, was effected, which falls under the
commercial quantity and thus, provisions of Section 37 of NDPS Act, are
attracted in the present case. She, on instructions, has submitted that out of
total 18 prosecution witnesses, only 03 witnesses have been examined so
far. He has produced the custody certificate of the petitioner on record.
5. After hearing counsel for the parties and perusing the record,
it is deciphered that the alleged recovery has been effected on the basis of
secret information and was made in a public place. The petitioner is
behind bars since the date of his arrest i.e. 09.09.2024. As per custody
certificate, the petitioner has suffered an incarceration of 01 year, 06
months and 04 days as on 14.03.2026. It further reflects that the petitioner
has no criminal antecedents as he has never been involved in any other
case of similar nature. As submitted before this Court, out of total 18
prosecution witnesses, only 03 witnesses have been examined so far.
6. The veracity of the allegations would be assessed only after
conclusion of the trial and on the appreciation of evidence to be led by
both the parties before the trial Court.
3 of 5
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
4 of 5
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. The trial of the case will take sufficiently long time. Thus,
keeping in view the overall facts and circumstances of the case, 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.
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.
17.03.2026 ( RAJESH BHARDWAJ )
ps-I JUDGE
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No
Whether reportable : Yes/No
5 of 5
