Vikram Singh @ Rinku v. State Of Haryana

-1IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision: 24.04.2026 Vikram Singh @ Rinku ..... Petitioner

Versus

State of Haryana ..... Respondent

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BHARDWAJ *****

Present:

Mr. Vikas Bishnoi, Advocate for the petitioner.

Ms. Diya Sodhi, Sr. DAG, Haryana.

***** RAJESH BHARDWAJ, J. (ORAL) 1.

Present petition has been filed praying for the grant of regular bail to the petitioner in case bearing FIR No.68, dated 23.02.2023, under Section 21(b) of NDPS Act (Section 27-A of NDPS Act added later on), registered at Police Station Bhuna, District Fatehabad. 2.

Succinctly, the facts of the case are that the police party was on patrolling on 23.02.2023 and when they reached at canal bridge, village Gorakhpur, they saw two young boys coming on foot from village Gorakhpur side, who on seeing the police, got perplexed and turned back and started walking. However, on suspicion, both were apprehended by the police party. On asking, they disclosed their names to be Sonu @ Kala and Kalu @ Akshay. They were suspected to be carrying some contraband and,

-2thus, their search was conducted. On conducting the search of Sonu @ Kala, 14 grams of heroin was recovered. They failed to produce any licence regarding the conscious possession of the same, thus, the FIR was registered and both were arrested on the spot. On registration of the FIR, the investigation commenced. The samples taken were sent to the FSL. During the investigation, complicity of the petitioner surfaced and thus, he was arrayed as an accused in the present case. Resultantly, the petitioner was arrested on 21.07.2025. On completion of the investigation, the challan was presented and on framing of charges, the trial commenced. The petitioner approached the Court of learned Judge, Special Court, Fast Track under NDPS Act, Fatehabad praying for the grant of regular bail.

However, after hearing both the sides and finding no merit in the same, the learned Judge, Special Court, Fast Track under NDPS Act, Fatehabad declined the bail application filed by the petitioner vide order dated 13.03.2026. Hence being aggrieved, the petitioner is before this Court praying for the grant of regular bail by way of filing the present petition. 3.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case. He has submitted that the alleged recovery of 14 grams of heroin has been effected from the co-accused, namely, Sonu @ Kala, which is a non commercial quantity. He has submitted that during the investigation, the petitioner has been implicated in the present case on the basis of disclosure statement of coaccused, which in itself is not even an admissible evidence. He has submitted that the co-accused, from whom the recovery of 14 grams of heroin has been effected, has already been granted the concession of bail.

-3He has submitted that the petitioner is behind bars since 21.07.2025, however, there is no material progress in the trial. He has submitted that in the facts and circumstances, the petitioner deserves to be granted regular bail.

4.

Per contra, learned counsel for the State has vehemently opposed the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner. She has submitted that complicity of the petitioner has been prima facie established during the investigation as he was the supplier of the contraband. She has submitted that the alleged recovery of 14 grams of heroin was effected in the present case from the co-accused, namely, Sonu @ Kala. She has submitted that the petitioner was earlier declared as proclaimed person and thereafter, he was arrested on 21.07.2025. She, on instructions, has submitted that the petitioner is a habitual offender, who is involved in 03 other cases. She, on instructions, has submitted that out of total 17 prosecution witnesses, only 02 witnesses have been examined so far. She has produced custody certificate of the petitioner today in the Court, which is taken on record.

5.

Heard.

6.

On hearing learned counsel for the parties and perusing the record, it is deciphered that the petitioner in the present case was arrested in the present case on 21.07.2025. The alleged recovery in the present case weighing 14 grams of heroin was effected from the co-accused, namely, Sonu @ Kala, which is admittedly a non commercial quantity. The petitioner was arrayed as an accused in the present case on the basis of disclosure statement of co-accused. Custody certificate produced would

-4show that the petitioner has suffered an incarceration of 09 months and 03 days as on 23.04.2026. It further reflects that the petitioner is involved in 03 other cases. Out of total 17 prosecution witnesses, only 02 witnesses have been examined so far.

7.

The veracity of the allegations would be assessed only after the conclusion of the trial and on the appreciation of evidence to be led by both the parties before the trial Court. This Court would refrain itself from commenting anything on the merits of the case. Keeping in view the arguments raised by both the sides and perusing the record, the Court is of the opinion that learned counsel for the petitioner succeeds in making out a case for the grant of bail.

8.

Accordingly, the present petition is allowed and the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail on his furnishing bail/surety bonds to the satisfaction of the concerned trial Court/Duty Magistrate. 9.

However, if the petitioner does not furnish the bail bonds within seven days from today, then his further custody period after one week will not be counted in this case. Nothing said herein shall be treated as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case. (RAJESH BHARDWAJ) 24.04.2026 JUDGE rittu Whether Speaking/Reasoned :

Yes/No Whether Reportable :

Yes/No