High Court of Punjab and HaryanaCRM-M/14075/2025dismissed

Dharamveer v. State Of Haryana

2025-07-09Mrs. Justice Sukhvinder Kaur3 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH.

Sr. No.217 Case No. : CRM-M-14075-2025 Decided On : July 09, 2025 Dharamveer ....

Petitioner vs.

State of Haryana ....

Respondent CORAM :

HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SUKHVINDER KAUR.

* * * Present :

Mr. Manoj Tanwar, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Karan Garg, AAG, Haryana.

* * * SUKHVINDER KAUR , J.

Prayer in the present petition, filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023 is for grant of regular bail to the petitioner, in case FIR No.188 dated 17.03.2024, under Section 20(B), 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as - NDPS Act), registered at Police Station City Rohtak, District Rohtak.

Briefly, the case of the prosecution is that on 17.03.2024, on the basis of secret information, raid in the house of one Rekha @ Suman was conducted and she was intercepted from the street, where her house was located, with one polythene bag of white colour, which was found having 1.5 kg charas. She was waiting for a customer. Resultantly, she was arrested with the contraband and FIR in question was registered. During her disclosure statement, she disclosed that she had purchased the said

contraband from the petitioner. Attempts to arrest the petitioner were made but in vain. Later, it came to the notice of police that the petitioner was lodged in District Jail Sunaira, District Rohtak in some other case. So, production warrants against the petitioner were got issued and he was joined in the investigation. During his own disclosure statement, the petitioner stated before the police that he used to bring charas from one Sandhu from Delhi. He also confessed that he supplied charas to Rekha @ Suman for selling it further. After completion of investigation, supplementary challan qua the petitioner was filed in the concerned Court. However, charges against the petitioner have not been framed and no witness has been examined as yet.

Learned counsel for petitioner has contended that no recovery from the petitioner had been effected. He has been falsely implicated in the present case and earlier also, he has been wrongly impleaded in several cases under the NDPS Act. In none of those cases, any recovery had been effected from him. He is in custody since long and as conclusion of the trial is likely to take time, his bail petition be allowed.

While issuing notice of motion on 12.05.2025, respondent-State was directed to file Status Report and Custody Certificate, which have been filed today in the Court and the same are taken on record. Learned State counsel, while referring to the Status Report, has opposed the bail petition while contending that from co-accused Rekha @ Suman, 1.5 kg charas, which falls within the commercial quantity, had been recovered. The petitioner had arranged said charas in collusion with main accused Rekha @ Suman for selling the same to the public persons and

therefore, learned State counsel has prayed that the present bail petition filed by the petitioner be dismissed.

I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the case file.

The name of the petitioner surfaced in this case on the basis of disclosure statement of main accused Rekha @ Suman with the specific allegation against the petitioner that he had supplied the contraband to her, which had been recovered in the present case. Thus, commercial quantity of contraband had been allegedly recovered from co-accused in the instant case and the petitioner is alleged to be the supplier of said contraband. As per the Status Report filed by the State, 11 more criminal cases had been registered against the petitioner and out of these, five NDPS cases are still pending against him. It does not appear to be a fit case, where the petitioner deserves to be granted concession of regular bail.

Accordingly, the present petition sans any merit and the same is hereby dismissed.

However, nothing observed herein above shall be construed to be an expression of opinion on the merits of the case. The observations recorded above are only for the purpose of deciding the present bail petition. July 09, 2025 (SUKHVINDER KAUR) monika JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned ?

Yes/No.

Whether reportable ?

Yes/No.