Dinesh v. State Of Haryana

-1IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision: 21.04.2026 DINESH ... PETITIONER

VERSUS

STATE OF HARYANA ... RESPONDENT CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.S.GREWAL Present:- Ms.Himani Anand, Advocate for the petitioner. H.S. Grewal, J.(Oral) 1.

This petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking regular bail under Section 483 BNSS, 2023 (439 of Cr.P.C), in case FIR No.280 dated 17.10.2025 under Sections 15(c) and 29 of the NDPS Act registered at Police Station Sadar, Kaithal, District Kaithal, Haryana. 2.

The case of the prosecution is that on 17.10.2025, secret information was received by the police that two vehicles bearing registration Nos. HR26BX-2269, make Volkswagen Passat, and UP16AP-0400, make Volkswagen Jetta, carrying a huge quantity of doda post, would be crossing Khanouri bypass. Acting upon the said information, a naka was laid and the vehicles were intercepted. Co-accused Gurjant Singh and Inder Singh were allegedly apprehended from one vehicle with 149.310 kg of poppy husk contained in 10 sacks, while co-accused Naseeb and Jagga Singh were apprehended from the other vehicle with 155.790 kg of poppy husk contained in 11 sacks. Thus, a total alleged recovery of 305.100 kg of poppy husk was effected.

-23.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has neither been named in the secret information nor in the FIR. It is contended that the petitioner has been nominated as an accused merely on the basis of being the alleged user of a particular mobile phone, which is not even registered in his name. She further submits that an amount of Rs. 1,20,000/- allegedly recovered from the petitioner's house cannot be termed as drug money as there is no substantial proof in that respect except the disclosure statement of the co-accused. It is also submitted that the petitioner is in custody since 02.11.2025, and therefore, prays for grant of regular bail. 4.

Notice of motion.

5.

Mr. Vijay Kumar, AAG, Haryana accepts notice on behalf of the respondent-State and has vehemently opposed the prayer for grant of regular bail to the petitioner. He has filed the custody certificate of the petitioner and the same is taken on record. As per the custody certificate, the petitioner is in custody for the last 05 months and 13 days and is not involved in any other case.

6.

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

7.

Keeping in view the facts that the petitioner is in custody for the last 05 months and 13 days; not involved in any other case and since the trial is yet to commence and is likely to take a considerable time to conclude, therefore, this Court deems it appropriate to grant the concession of regular bail to the petitioner during the pendency of the trial as the continuous detention of the petitioner would not serve the ends of justice.

-38.

Therefore, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the instant petition is allowed. The petitioner is ordered to be released on regular bail on his furnishing requisite bail bonds, surety bonds to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court/Duty Magistrate/Chief Judicial Magistrate concerned.

9.

However, it is made clear that in case the petitioner misuses the concession of bail, the State/complainant would be at liberty to seek cancellation of his bail.

10.

Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of. 21.04.2026 (H.S.GREWAL) renu JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned :

Yes/No Whether reportable:

Yes/No