Virender Singh @ Maru v. State Of Haryana

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH Decided on : 23.04.2026 VIRENDER SINGH @ MARU ......Petitioner

Versus

STATE OF HARYANA ......Respondent

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY VASHISTH

Present:

Mr. Dhananjay Singh, Advocate, and Mr. Sandeep Simpy, Advocate, for the petitioner.

Mr. Pawan Kumar Jhanda, Sr. DAG, Haryana.

**** SANJAY VASHISTH, J.

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 Virender Singh @ Maru, aged about 29 years 18.05.2025 21(b) and 27-A of NDPS Act City Fatehabad Fatehabad 2.

Briefly stated, the case of prosecution is that on 18.05.2025, a police party headed by ASI Sushil Kumar, on the basis of suspicion, apprehended co-accused Supreet @ Babbu son of Avtar Singh and

recovery of 06 grams Heroin was effected from him, in the presence of Sh. Anand Singh, DETC, Fatehabad. On this, present case was registered. During investigation, co-accused Supreet @ Babbu was arrested, who, suffered disclosure-statement regarding his involvement in the offence and having purchased recovered contraband from co-accused Pargat @ Ninja son of Subeg Singh.

During further investigation on 06.06.2025, co-accused Pargat Singh @ Ninja was arrested, who, suffered disclosure-statement regarding his involvement in the offence and having purchased recovered contraband from the present petitioner, namely, Virender Singh @ Madhu.

During further investigation, on 16.10.2025, petitioner was joined in the investigation, after taking permission of Court, when he was produced before the Court, in pursuance of production warrant. Petitioner was arrested, who suffered disclosure-statement regarding his involvement in the offence and having purchased total 15 grams Heroin from an unknown person.

3.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that apart from the recovery of 6 grams of heroin from the accused Supreet @ Babbu, no narcotic substance was recovered from any other accused by the investigating agency.

Further submits that main accused, Supreet @ Babbu, and the co-accused, Pargat Singh @ Ninja, have already been granted the concession of regular bail by the Court of learned Special Judge, Fast

Track Court, Fatehabad, vide orders dated 06.06.2025 and 10.07.2025, respectively.

4.

It is also argued that the petitioner is in custody since 16.10.2025, i.e., for approximately six months. Investigation in the case stands completed, and challan has already been presented. Given that conclusion of the trial is likely to take considerable time, continued incarceration of the petitioner would serve no useful purpose. Thus, counsel prays for grant of regular bail to the petitioner in the present case.

5.

On the other hand, learned State counsel is unable to dispute any of the factual assertion as stated by counsel for the petitioner today before this Court, including the total incarceration period already undergone by the petitioner.

However, learned State counsel submits that petitioner is a habitual offender, as apart from the present case, petitioner is involved in eleven other criminal cases, including two under the NDPS Act. On this basis, it is argued that petitioner does not deserve the concession of bail. Accordingly, prayer is made for dismissal of the present petition. 6.

This Court has heard the submissions addressed by learned counsel for the parties and has perused the record available on file. 7.

Admittedly, co-accused Supreet @ Babbu, from whom the alleged contraband was recovered, and Pargat Singh @ Ninja have already been granted the concession of regular bail by the courts below. From the possession of the present petitioner, no contraband or other incriminating material has been recovered so as to directly or

indirectly connect him with the alleged offence. Whether the disclosure statement made by the co-accused is sufficient to sustain proceedings against the petitioner, is a matter to be examined by the trial Court. For this reason alone, petitioner cannot be kept in custody for an indefinite period, merely on the ground that he is involved in eleven other criminal cases, including two under the NDPS Act.

8.

In view of the totality of the circumstances, nature of allegations, and the factors noticed here above, this Court deems it appropriate to grant the concession of regular bail to the petitioner in the present case.

Consequently, prayer made in 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.

9.

Needless to observe that the petitioner shall not extend any threat and shall not influence any prosecution witness in any manner directly or indirectly.

10.

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.

11.

It is further made clear that if, in future, petitioner is directly found indulged in similar kind of activities, this order shall be deemed to be cancelled.

12.

Petition stands disposed of.

(SANJAY VASHISTH) JUDGE 23.04.2026 Lavisha Whether Speaking/Reasoned:

YES/NO Whether Reportable:

YES/NO