Goutam Alias Gullu v. State Of Haryana

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH Decided on : 23.07.2025 Goutam @ Gullu ...... Petitioner

Versus

State of Haryana ...... Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.S.GREWAL Present : Mr. Sukesh Kumar Jindal, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Amrik Narwal, DAG, Haryana.

**** H.S.Grewal, J.(Oral) 1.

This is the petition filed under Section 483 of BNSS for grant of regular bail to the petitioner in case FIR No.101 dated 03.05.2023 under Section 20 of NDPS Act, 1985 registered at Police Station Sanoli District Panipat.

2.

The case of the prosecution is that the petitioner Goutam @ Gullu along with co-accused Bharat Bhushan was apprehended with 1 kg 20 grams of charas, which is marginally higher than the commercial quantity.

3.

Learned counsel for the petitioner inter alia contends that the petitioner is in custody since 03.05.2023. Learned counsel submits that only one witness out of 15 cited by the prosecution has been examined so far and therefore, the trial is not likely to conclude in the near future. The petitioner is not involved in any other criminal case. Learned counsel further submits that co-accused Bharat Bhushan has

already been granted bail by this Court vide order dated 11.03.2025 (Annexure P-1) and sought parity qua the petitioner. A prayer, therefore, has been made to extend the concession of bail to the petitioner.

3.

Status report by way of an affidavit of Narender Singh, Deputy Superintendent of Police, Samalkha, Panipat along with custody certificate of the petitioner filed in Court are taken on record. 4.

On the other hand, learned State counsel while opposing the prayer made by learned counsel for the petitioner, on instructions submits that the quantity of recovered contraband is commercial in nature, which was found from the conscious possession of the petitioner. However, learned State counsel has not been able to controvert that only one witness out of 15 cited by the prosecution has been examined so far. It has also not been disputed that co-accused Bharast Bhushan has already been granted bail by this Court and the petitioner is not involved in any other criminal case. 5.

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material placed on record.

6.

The petitioner has been in custody since 03.05.2023. The investigation in the case in hand is complete as challan stands presented. The trial will take considerable time to conclude as only one out of 15 witnesses cited by the prosecution has been examined so far. The petitioner is not involved in any other criminal case. 7.

In the facts and circumstances as enumerated hereinabove, this Court deems it fit to extend the concession of regular bail to the

petitioner. Accordingly, the instant petition is allowed. The petitioner be admitted to bail on his furnishing bail/surety bonds to the satisfaction of the Trial Court/Duty Magistrate concerned.

8.

However, it is made clear that anything observed hereinabove shall not be construed to be an expression of opinion on the merits of the case.

9.

Needless to add, in case the petitioner misuses the concession of bail granted to him, the State would be at liberty to seek cancellation of the same.

23.07.2025 (H.S.GREWAL) sonia JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/No