Krishan Lal v. State Of Haryana

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH 110+213 Decided on : 30.04.2026 Krishan Lal . . . Petitioner(s)

Versus

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

Mr. Sandeep Saini, Advocate for the petitioner(s).

Mr. Pawan Kumar Jhanda, Sr. DAG Haryana **** SANJAY VASHISTH, J. (Oral) CRM-18721-2026 This is an application filed under Section 528 of BNSS for placing on record Annexures P-6 and P-7.

For the reasons mentioned in the application, the same is allowed and Annexures P-6 and P-7 are taken on record.

CRM-M-8627-2026 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 Petitioner(s) FIR No. Date Section(s) Police Station District Krishan Lal, aged 30 years 29.07.2022 22, 27 A & 29/61/85 of NDPS Act Saha Ambala, Haryana

2.

As per case of the prosecution, on basis of secret information two accused namely Ankit Kumar and Rinku were arrested on 29.07.2022 and from their possession 800 injections of Buprenorphine and 800 injections of Pheniramine Maleate Injection IP (Avil) were recovered. On the basis of disclosure statement of both the accused, another accused Gaurav @ Kala was arrested and was made accused. Another disclosure statement (second) of Rinku was recorded, who named another accused Vivek @ Vicky, involved in the crime. When accused Vivek @ Vicky was arrested, he named another accused Arjun @ Tuti. When accused Arjun @ Tuti was arrested, he named the present petitioner - Krishan Lal.

4.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that after effecting recovery of Buprenorphine injections from accused Ankit and Rinku, no narcotic contraband from any of the accused, whose names were disclosed in the disclosure statement was recovered. Thus, in all probability, case is planted one, only with the purpose to increase the number of accused in one particular case. He also submits that the main accused Ankit and Rinku were granted bail by the trial Court itself vide its order dated 31.01.2023 (Annexure P-3) and even Arjun @ Tuti and Vivek @ Vicky have also been released on bail by this Court vide order dated 28.08.2023 passed in CRM-M-2745-2023 and order dated 02.11.2023 passed in CRM-M-53808-2023 (Annexures P-4 and P-5). Co-accused Gaurav has also been released on bail by learned trial Court vide its order dated 07.02.2023 (Annexure P-6).

Learned counsel further submit that petitioner is in custody since 08.08.2025. It is further submitted that charges have not yet been framed in the present case and, considering the likelihood of a protracted trial, learned counsel

prays for grant of regular bail to the petitioner in the present case. 7.

Learned State counsel while opposing the prayer and submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that offences alleged are grave in nature.

It is further submitted that investigation is at a crucial stage and release of the petitioner may lead to interference with evidence or influence on witnesses. Therefore, he prays for dismissal of the present petition. 8.

This Court has heard learned counsel for both the respective parties and have considered the facts alleged in the FIR, as well as the investigation conducted by the prosecution.

9.

Considering the totality of circumstances, and facts/allegations levelled against the petitioner, and the factors noticed hereinabove, including the total period of incarceration already undergone by the petitioner and slow pace of trial, this Court deems it appropriate to grant the concession of bail to the petitioner in the present case.

Consequently, prayer made in both 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.

Petition stands disposed of.

Pending application(s), if any, shall stands disposed of accordingly. April 30, 2026 (SANJAY VASHISTH) JUDGE reena Whether speaking/reasoned:

Yes/No Whether Reportable:

Yes/No