[Cites 5, Cited by 0]
Punjab-Haryana High Court
Maniram vs State Of Haryana on 18 March, 2026
CRM-M-62408-2025 (O&M) 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
123
CRM-M-62408-2025 (O&M)
Date of decision: 18.03.2026
Maniram
....Petitioner
Versus
State of Haryana
...Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMAN CHAUDHARY
*****
Present : Mr. I.S. Kooner, Advocate for the petitioner
Mr. B.S. Saroha, DAG Haryana
*****
AMAN CHAUDHARY, J. (ORAL)
1. Prayer in the present petition filed under Section 483 BNSS is for
grant of regular bail to the petitioner in case FIR No.0208 dated 11.05.2025,
registered under Section 18 of NDPS Act at Police Station Chandimandir,
District Panchkula.
2. Learned counsel contends that the petitioner has been in custody
for more than 10 months. As per the allegations, the alleged recovery effected
from him is marginally above the non-commercial quantity, it being 2 kg & 613
grams of opium was effected from him and the weight of polythene has not been
deducted. The mandatory provisions of Sections 50 and 42 of NDPS Act were
not fully complied with. No independent witness was joined at the time of
recovery. Charges have been framed on 23.09.2025, however, out of 18
prosecution witnesses, none has been examined. The petitioner is not involved
in any other case.
3. Learned State counsel opposes the bail on the ground that the
1 of 4
commercial quantity of contraband was recovered from the petitioner, who was
apprehended at the spot. However, he is unable to controvert the submissions
with regard to stage and the petitioner being not involved in any other case.
4. Heard.
5. This Court had granted the concession of bail in Karandeep Singh
@ Sunny vs. State of Punjab, CRM-M-9712-2021, on 06.09.2021, a case of
recovery of 270 and 150 grams of heroin from two accused, being marginally
higher than non-commercial quantity after about 11 months. Similarly in
Simrapal Singh vs. UOI, CRM-M-10276-2021, on 17.09.2021, the custody
being of about 1 year and the recovery of 1.5 grams of charas, marginally above
non-commercial quantity, against which the SLP filed by UOI was dismissed on
23.01.2023, in Basanti Mondal and Ors. vs. State of West Bengal, SLP (Crl.)
No.12586/2022 on 29.03.2023, to the lady after 1 year of custody, recovery
being of 6548 bottles, each contained 100 ml of phensedyl cough linctus
codeine and in Munasi Masih vs. State of Punjab, CRM-M-31504-2022, on
06.2.2023, wherein commercial quantity of contraband had been recovered but
only 2 out of 13 PWs had been examined.
6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, in particular
that the petitioner is in custody for the last 10 months and 3 days; not involved
in any other case; charges have been framed on 23.09.2025, however,
prosecution evidence is yet to commence, the trial is likely to take a
considerable time, further incarceration of the petitioner would be violative of
his right enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, the present
petition is allowed.
2 of 4
7. The petitioner is ordered to be released on regular bail, subject to
furnishing bail/surety bonds to the satisfaction of trial Court/Duty Magistrate
concerned, if not required in any other case and shall abide by the following
conditions:-
(i) The petitioner will not tamper with the evidence
during the trial.
(ii) The petitioner will not pressurize/ intimidate the
prosecution witnesses.
(iii) The petitioner will appear before the trial Court on
each and every date fixed, unless is exempted by a
specific order of Court.
(iv) The petitioner shall not commit an offence similar to
the offence of which, he is an accused, or for
commission of which he is suspected of.
(v) The petitioner shall not directly or indirectly coerce,
induce, threaten or promise to any person acquainted
with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him/ her
from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any
police officer or tamper with the evidence in any
manner.
(vi) The petitioner shall not in any manner misuse his
liberty.
(vii) The petitioner shall furnish his address and mobile
number by way of an affidavit to the trial Court and
not change the same till conclusion of trial and if for
any reasons, he seeks to change either of the aforesaid,
it shall be done only with prior information to the
learned trial Court.
(viii) The petitioner shall not leave the country without prior
permission of the trial Court.
(ix) The trial Court/Duty Magistrate may impose any other
condition, as deemed appropriate while releasing the
petitioner.
8. It is made abundantly clear that in case there is any breach of the
aforesaid conditions, the State shall be at liberty to seek cancellation of bail as
granted to the petitioner by this order.
9. In view of the above, it is clarified that the observations made
3 of 4
herein above are limited for the purpose of present proceedings and would not
be construed as any opinion on the merits of the case and the trial would
proceed independently of the aforesaid observations.
(AMAN CHAUDHARY)
JUDGE
18.03.2026
M.Kamra
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes / No
Whether reportable : Yes / No
4 of 4
