Mangi Lal v. State Of Haryana

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH Decided on :29.05.2026 Mangi Lal . . . Petitioner(s)

Versus

State of Haryana . . . Respondent(s) CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY VASHISTH

Present:

Mr. Raman Chawla, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Amish Sharma, Asst. A.G., Haryana.

**** SANJAY VASHISTH , J. (Oral) 1.

Present petition has been filed under Section 483 of the BNSS, seeking regular bail in case FIR No.0590 dated 01.08.2025, under Sections 15(c)/61/85 of NDPS Act, registered at Police Station Azad Nagar Hisar, District Hisar.

2.

Case of the prosecution is that on 01.08.2025, on the basis of secret information, police party headed by ASI Sunil Kumar apprehended accused Vijay Pal while he was travelling in a Creta car bearing registration No. HR29-AK-2215. From his possession, 60 kg of doda post (poppy straw) was recovered.

After registration of the FIR, investigation proceeded. During the course of investigation, accused-Vijay Pal allegedly made disclosure statement naming present petitioner-Mangi Lal, as his coaccused being supplier of the recovered contraband. Subsequently, after the arrest of the petitioner on 21.01.2026, investigation was completed

and supplementary challan was presented against both accused persons, including the petitioner.

3.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner has been implicated solely on the basis of the disclosure statement of the main accused-Vijay Pal, from whom 60 kg of doda post was recovered. It is further contended that except for the disclosure statement, no other incriminating evidence has been collected by the Investigating Officer against the petitioner.

With regard to the allegation that petitioner had contacted accused-Vijay Pal through mobile phone, learned counsel submits that the call detail records and SMS records pertain to a period prior to the alleged recovery. It is further submitted that petitioner's mobile phone was lost in April 2025, regarding which a complaint dated 11.04.2025 (Annexure P-2) was also made to the SHO, Police Station Mojapur. 4.

Learned counsel further submits that petitioner is in custody since 21.01.2026, i.e., for about four months and eight days, and trial is not likely to conclude in near future. In these circumstances, learned counsel for the petitioner prays for grant of regular bail to the petitioner. 5.

On the other hand, learned State counsel has filed the custody certificate in Court today, which is taken on record. Office to tag the same at appropriate place. A copy thereof has been handed over to the learned counsel for the petitioner.

Learned State counsel, while opposing the bail, submits that the recovery involved in the present case is of commercial quantity, i.e., 60 kg of doda post (poppy straw), which is much beyond the commercial

threshold prescribed under the NDPS Act. It is further submitted that investigation has revealed sufficient incriminating material against the petitioner in the form of call detail records (CDRs) and messages exchanged between the petitioner and co-accused-Vijay Pal, which establish their connection and involvement in the illicit supply chain. It is further contended that the recovered contraband was allegedly supplied by the petitioner to accused-Vijay Pal for a sale ₹ consideration of 1,80,000/-. Allegations, therefore, disclose a wellorganized illicit trafficking network involving the petitioner. In these circumstances, it is submitted that the petitioner does not deserve the concession of bail and prays for dismissal of present petition. 6.

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have carefully perused the paper-book, along with the documents appended thereto.

7.

Alleged recovery of contraband in the present case is only marginally above the maximum prescribed for non-commercial quantity. The explanation furnished in the status report filed by the respondent/State that there is sufficient evidence against the petitioner, showing his alleged connectivity with main accused-Vijay Pal, from whom 60 kg of doda post was recovered, is a matter which would require detailed appreciation during the course of trial after the entire evidence is led before the learned trial Court.

8.

Petitioner is in custody for a period of last about four months and six days and his involvement in the present case, at this stage, is stated to be primarily based on the disclosure statement of the co-

accused. The relevancy and evidentiary value of the call detail records is yet to be finally adjudicated.

Thus, without commenting on the merits of the case, this Court deems it appropriate to allow the present petition. Petitioner is ordered to be released on bail, subject to his furnishing bail/surety bonds to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court/ Chief Judicial Magistrate/Illaqa Magistrate/ Duty Magistrate concerned, if not required in any other case.

9.

Any of the discussion done and recorded hereabove, shall not be construed as an expression of opinion on the facts of the case. Therefore, trial Court is expected to decide the case by taking an independent view, on the basis of evidence available on record, as expeditiously as possible in accordance with law. 10.

Petition stands disposed of.

(SANJAY VASHISTH) JUDGE 29.05.2026 Rashmi Whether speaking/reasoned:

Yes/No Whether Reportable:

Yes/No