Sonu v. State Of Haryana

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision: 18.03.2025 SONU ....Petitioner(s)

VERSUS

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

Present:

Mr. Sandeep Kotla, 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 31.07.2024 20(b)(i)IC and 61-85/29 of NDPS Act Madlauda Panipat 2.

Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that - (i) recovery of 1.203 Kgs. of Charas has been effected from the main accused, namely, Bhartari son of Jai Narain;

(ii) as per the prosecution version, during interrogation, main accused Bhartari disclosed the names of two

other accused, i.e. Sonu son of Sompal and Rammehar @ Ram Mehar (petitioner herein);

(iii) petitioner - Rammehar @ Ram Mehar was arrested after a period of four months i.e. on 30.12.2024; (iv) case of the prosecution is solely based upon the disclosure statement of main accused Bhartari, and same is not an admissible evidence, as per law, unless there is some supporting evidence;

(v) petitioner is inside jail since 30.12.2024 and the quantity of recovered contraband is little more than the maximum of non-commercial quantity i.e. 1 Kg. Thus, prays for grant of bail.

3.

On advance notice, learned State counsel puts in appearance and while opposing the prayer for bail points out that the petitioner is not an accused in any other case under NDPS Act.

4.

After hearing learned counsel for the parties and perusing the relevant material on record with their able assistance, this Court finds substance in the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner by observing that in the present case, contraband of Charas, weighing 1.203 Kgs. has been recovered from the main co-accused, Bhartari, who during interrogation named both the accused, subsequently. The petitioner is aged about 32 years and inside jail since 30.12.2024. Culmination of the trial is likely to take long time, and liberty of the petitioner cannot be curtailed for indefinite period.

5.

In view of totality of circumstances, and the facts/allegations levelled against the petitioner, and the factors noticed hereinabove, I deem it appropriate to grant the concession of bail to the petitioner.

6.

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.

7.

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

8.

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.

9.

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.

10.

Petition stands disposed of.

(SANJAY VASHISTH) March 18, 2025 JUDGE Sangeeta Whether reasoned/speaking:

Yes/No Whether reportable:

Yes/No