Jagsir v. State Of Haryana

-1IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of decision: 06.04.2026 Jagsir

...Petitioner(s)

VERSUS

State of Haryana

...Respondent(s)

CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD S. BHARDWAJ Present :- Mr. Aman Mehta, Advocate, for the petitioner.

Mr. Paras Talwar, Sr. DAG, Haryana.

VINOD S. BHARDWAJ , J. (Oral) This is the second petition filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for grant of regular bail to the petitioner in case bearing FIR No.300 dated 28.09.2025, under Section(s) 18(c) and 27-A of NDPS Act registered at Police Station Bhuna, District Fatehabad.

2.

Brief facts of the prosecution case are that on 28.09.2025, a police party headed by ASI Rajesh Kumar, on the basis of suspicion, apprehended Manjeet Kumar @ Haider son of Hawa Singh and recovery of 78 grams 49 milligrams opium was effected from him, in the presence of Sh. Ravinder Saini, AETO, Fatehabad. On this, present case was registered. Investigation was carried out. During investigation, Manjeet Kumar @ Haider was arrested, who, suffered disclosure statement regarding his involvement in the offence and further disclosed having purchased the recovered contraband from Jagsir

-2- @ Jaggi son of Mangat Ram (petitioner herein) and Section 27A of NDPS Act was added.

3.

Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner has been nominated as an accused on the basis of disclosure statement of coaccused Manjeet Kumar @ Haider from whom 78 grams 49 milligrams of opium has been recovered. The petitioner was accordingly arrested on 29.09.2025. Learned counsel further submits that no recovery has been effected from the petitioner after his arrest. There is also no link evidence on the basis of which the petitioner can be connected to the recovery that has been effected from co-accused Manjeet Kumar @ Haider. Moreover, the quantity of the recovered contraband is of intermediate quantity. Learned counsel contends that said co-accused has already been granted the concession of bail. Learned counsel submits that out of total 14 prosecution witnesses, no witness has been examined till date and accordingly, trial is likely to take a long time to conclude.

4.

On the other hand, State counsel does not dispute the above-said contentions, however, he contends that the petitioner is involved in three more cases under the NDPS Act, which have been registered at Police Station Bhuna, Police Station Sadar Fatehabad and Police Station Jakhal District Fatehabad. The petitioner is thus, a habitual offender. Learned State counsel, however, does not dispute the fact that the recovered quantity of contraband is intermediate quantity and there are arguable issues with respect to involvement of the petitioner in NDPS cases. He does not controvert the fact that evidence has not commenced in the present case.

-35.

Having heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the parties and taking into consideration the facts as mentioned above, role of the petitioner, recovery in the present case, stage of trial as well as period of custody along with the fact that main accused Manjeet Kumar @ Haider has already been granted the concession of bail, I deem it appropriate to enlarge the petitioner on regular bail to the satisfaction of the trial Court. 6.

The instant petition is allowed and the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail on his furnishing requisite bail bond/surety bond to the satisfaction of the Trial Court/Duty Magistrate, concerned. 7.

It is made clear that the petitioner shall not extend any threat and shall not influence any prosecution witnesses in any manner directly or indirectly.

8.

The observation made hereinabove shall not be construed as an expression on the merits of the case and the trial Court shall decide the case on the basis of available material.

06.04.2026 (VINOD S. BHARDWAJ) sonia JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/No