Sonu Sharma v. State Of Haryana

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision: 04.03.2025 SONU SHARMA ....Petitioner(s)

VERSUS

STATE OF HARYANA ....Respondent(s) CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY VASHISTH

Present:

Mr. Balraj Gujjar, Advocate for the petitioner. Ms. Mayuri Lakhanpal, DAG, Haryana.

**** SANJAY VASHISTH , J. (Oral) 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 Sonu Sharma 22.12.2023 21-B,29, 61, 85 of NDPS Act Central Faridabad Faridabad (Hry.) 2.

As per allegations, 11.27 grms of heroin was recovered from the right pocket of jeans worn by petitioner - Sonu Sharma, whereas commercial quantity would be of more than 250 grms. 3.

Counsel for the petitioner argues that alleged recovery is almost little more than the double of the small quantity (5 grms) from the

possession of the petitioner which undoubtedly is non-commercial quantity.

4.

Petitioner is stated to be inside jail since 12.12.2023 and during the one month period, when he was released on interim bail by learned trial Court, the concession was never misused in any manner. Petitioner surrendered back to the jail authorities within the stipulated time period. Thus, prays for grant of bail.

5.

On the other hand, on advance notice, while opposing the contention of bail, learned State counsel submits that out of total 14 prosecution witnesses, 02 prosecution witnesses have been examined and the next date fixed for further trial is 16.04.2025. Learned State counsel further submits that there is another NDPS case registered against the petitioner, however, he has already been released on bail in the said case.

5.

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record with their able assistance.

6.

Considering the fact that recovery of the contraband effected from the possession of the petitioner; and that he is inside jail for a period of more than 01 year; that during the period he remained on interim bail, condition of bail was not violated by him and he surrendered back within time, and also the status of trial, this Court deems it appropriate to grant the concession of bail to the petitioner.

7.

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.

8.

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

9.

The observation made hereinabove shall not be construed as an expression of opinion on the facts of the case and the Trial Court is expected to decide the case on the basis of complete evidence available on record.

10.

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.

11.

Petition stands disposed of.

(SANJAY VASHISTH) March 04, 2025 JUDGE Sangeeta Whether reasoned/speaking:

Yes/No Whether reportable:

Yes/No