Manoj Kumar Singh v. State Of Haryana

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-2889-2026 Manoj Kumar Singh . . . Petitioner(s)

Versus

State of Haryana . . . Respondent(s) 204-2 Gopal Kumar Yadav . . . Petitioner(s)

Versus

State of Haryana . . . Respondent(s) Decided on :26.05.2026 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY VASHISTH

Present:

Mr. Ravi Rana, Advocate for the petitioner(s). Mr. P.K. Jhanda, Sr. DAG, Haryana.

**** SANJAY VASHISTH , J. (Oral) 1.

This common order shall decide the fate aforementioned two petitions, seeking grant of regular bail, as the same have arisen out of same FIR, as detailed hereunder:- Name of Petitioner Case No.

Crime Details Manoj Kumar Singh CRM-M-2889-2026 FIR No.241 dated 29.06.2025, under Sections 20(b)(ii)(c) of NDPS Act (Section 29 of NDPS Act were added lateron, registered at Police Station Madhuban, District Karnal Gopal Kumar Yadav As above

2.

As per case of the prosecution, when the police team was proceeding towards Sugar Mill, Meerut Road, Karnal, a special messenger informed them that accused-Gopal (petitioner in CRM-M5330-2026), resident of District Araria, Bihar, was involved in selling ganja leaves and that if a raid was conducted, he could be apprehended. Accordingly, a raid was conducted, during which it was noticed that accused-Gopal Kumar Yadav was sitting on a plastic bag and, upon noticing the police, he started walking swiftly towards the fields. On being apprehended by the police team, ganja leaves weighing 21.07 kg were recovered from the bag on which he had been sitting. During investigation, it was further disclosed by Gopal Kumar Yadav that the said ganja leaves had been supplied to him by Manoj Kumar Singh (petitioner in CRM-M-2889-2026). Submissions on behalf of petitioner Gopal Kumar Yadav 3.

Learned counsel for the petitioner argues that recovery of ganja is only 1 kg 700 gms more than the maximum of non-commercial quantity i.e. 20 kg. Further, it is argued that there is no other case under the provisions of the NDPS Act ever found registered against the petitioner.

Counsel further submits that since there is no allegation that the petitioner had any knowledge about the plastic bag and as to what it contains, petitioner had no knowledge about it or he was in conscious possession of the same. Allegations are based upon assumption, and a false case has been planted against him. Counsel further submits that it is

a matter of trial. Petitioner is in custody for a period of last ten months and twenty days. Thus, prayer is made for grant of regular bail. Submissions on behalf of petitioner-Manoj Kumar Singh 4.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case and his name has surfaced on the basis of a disclosure statement suffered by co-accused, namely Gopal Kumar Yadav, which is inadmissible in law. It is further submitted that there is no other material collected by the prosecution during the course of investigation except call detail records and WhatsApp chats. Counsel for the petitioner further submits that it is yet to be determined whether the allegations regarding supply of ganja to the coaccused are true or not, and same is a matter of trial. Petitioner is in custody for a period of last ten months and twenty days. Therefore, prayer is made for grant of regular bail.

5.

Learned State counsel opposes the prayer for grant of regular bail and submits that in the present case, commercial quantity of contraband has been recovered from accused-Gopal Kumar Yadav as well as the involvement of co-accused Manoj Kumar Singh is also alleged in the supply chain of the contraband. It is thus submitted that no case for grant of bail is made out in view of the seriousness of the offence under the NDPS Act.

However, on being asked, it is informed that out of total 14 prosecution witnesses, only 04 witnesses have been examined till date.

6.

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have carefully perused the paper-book, along with the documents appended thereto.

7.

Without commenting upon the merits of the case and solely for the purpose of adjudication of the present petitions, this Court noticed that petitioners are in custody for a period of last ten months and twenty days. It further emerges that the trial is at an initial stage, inasmuch as out of a total of 14 prosecution witnesses, only 04 witnesses have been examined till date, and the conclusion of trial is likely to take considerable time. This Court is conscious of the rigours of Section 37 of the NDPS Act. However, at this stage, considering the period of custody already undergone, stage of trial, and the fact that further incarceration would not serve any useful purpose, this Court deems it appropriate to grant the concession of regular bail to the petitioners.

Accordingly, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, present petitions are allowed. Petitioners are ordered to be released on bail, subject to their 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. 8.

Any of the discussion done and recorded hereabove, 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.

9.

Petitions stand disposed of.

10.

A photocopy of this order be placed on the file of another connected case.

(SANJAY VASHISTH) JUDGE 26.05.2026 Rashmi Whether speaking/reasoned:

Yes/No Whether Reportable:

Yes/No