Jangir Ram v. State Of Haryana

-1IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision: 25.05.2026 Jangir Ram @ Baba ....Petitioner

Versus

State of Haryana ....Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE RUPINDERJIT CHAHAL

Present:

Mr. Karan Garg, Advocate for the petitioner.

Ms. Shaveta Sanghi, DAG, Haryana.

***** RUPINDERJIT CHAHAL, J (ORAL) 1.

Prayer in the instant petition filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 is for grant of regular bail to the petitioner in case FIR No.302 dated 27.12.2025 registered under Section 180 of BNS and Sections 22(b), 61, 85 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, at Police Station City Ratia, District Fatehabad. 2.

Brief facts of the present case are that on 27.12.2025, ASI Partap Singh, along with his fellow police officials was on patrolling duty and on the basis of secret information, apprehended the petitioner, who was found in conscious possession of 40 tablets of Buprenorphine, 225 capsules of Pregabalin and 420 tablets of Tapentadol Hydrochloride along with fake currency notes amounting to Rs.27,500/-, 12 wrist watches, 08 mobiles, 02 silver Kada and 03 silver chains. Hence, the present FIR.

-23.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case and he has no concern with the said offence. He further submitted that mandatory provisions of the NDPS Act were not complied with at the time of alleged search and seizure. He argued that recovery of alleged contraband has already been effected from the petitioner and nothing more is to be recovered from him. He further argued that alleged recovery of contraband falls under the non-commercial quantity. The petitioner is in custody since 27.12.2025. The investigation in this case is complete, challan stands presented and charges have also been framed. He further submitted that there are total 14 prosecution witnesses but none has been examined till date and as such, the trial will take a long time to conclude and no useful purpose would be served by keeping him behind bars. Therefore, it is urged that the petition deserves to be allowed.

4.

On the other hand, learned State counsel has filed the custody certificate of the petitioner, which is taken on record and while referring to the status report already filed in the matter, she has opposed the prayer for grant of bail by submitting that the offence committed by the petitioner is serious in nature. She argued that the petitioner was apprehended at the spot with the alleged contraband. She has further submitted that the petitioner is also involved in other cases meaning thereby he is a habitual offender. 5.

Having heard learned counsel for the parties at length and after perusing the record of the case, it is evident that the petitioner is in custody for more than 04 months; investigation is complete; challan stands presented; charges framed; out of 14 prosecution witnesses, none has been

-3examined till date; the complicity of the petitioner is a matter of trial, which is proceeding at snail's pace, and will take a long time to conclude. Thus, no useful purpose would be served by detaining him in further custody. His continued detention without the prospect of the trial being concluded in the near future would be violative of his rights under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.

6.

Reliance is placed upon a judgment in the case of Dataram Singh vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr. 2018(2) R.C.R. (Criminal) 131, wherein Hon'ble Apex Court has held that keeping somebody behind the bars, till his guilt is proved, for an indefinite period amounts to infringement of his right to life and liberty, as enshrined under Article 21 of Constitution of India and is against the principle "bail is a rule" and "jail is an exception".

7.

As regards the submission of learned State counsel that petitioner is involved in other/one more criminal case(s), reference is placed upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Maulana Mohd. Amir Rashadi Vs. State of U.P. and another, 2012 (2) SCC 382 in which, it is held that the facts and circumstances of the present case are to be seen while deciding a bail application and the bail application of the petitioner cannot be rejected solely on the ground that the petitioner is involved in other/another case(s). The relevant portion of the said judgment is reproduced herein-below:- "As observed by the High Court, merely on the basis of criminal antecedents, the claim of the second respondent cannot be rejected. In other words, it is the duty of the Court to find out

-4the role of the accused in the case in which he has been charged and other circumstances such as possibility of fleeing away from the jurisdiction of the Court etc."

8.

In view of the above, the present petition is allowed and the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail on his furnishing bail bonds/surety bonds to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court/Duty Magistrate/CJM concerned. It is clarified that nothing stated herein shall be construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case. (RUPINDERJIT CHAHAL) 25.05.2026 JUDGE D.Bansal Whether speaking/reasoned :

Yes/No Whether reportable :

Yes/No