Sandeep Kumar v. State Of Haryana

-1IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision: 19.05.2025 SANDEEP KUMAR ... PETITIONER

VERSUS

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

This petition has been filed for grant of regular bail under Section 483 of BNSS in case FIR No. 054 dated 27.02.2025 (Annexure P-1) under Section 22(c), 29 of NDPS Act registered at Police Station Civil Lines, Hisar. 2.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the case of the prosecution is that the main accused-Mohd Aamir was found in possession of 1190 tablets of Alprazolam and 60 tramadol injections. The petitioner has been nominated in the present case only on the basis of disclosure statement suffered by co-accused Mohd. Aamir that he had sold 1500 tablets of Alprazolam to the petitioner. However, no recovery has been effected from the conscious possession of the petitioner. He further submits that there is only disclosure statement against the petitioner and the same is inadmissible and is not a piece of evidence. The petitioner is in custody since 28.02.2025.

-23.

Notice of motion.

4.

Mr. Parveen Kumar Aggarwal, DAG, Haryana accepts notice on behalf of the respondent-State. Learned State counsel has filed the custody certificate in the Court today, which is taken on record. As per custody certificate, the petitioner is in custody for the last 02 months and 15 days. He vehemently opposes the prayer for grant of regular bail to the petitioner on the ground that the co-accused has sold 1500 tablets of Alprazolam to the petitioner. He fairly admits that the petitioner is in custody since 28.02.2025. On asking, he submits that there is only disclosure statement of the co-accused against the petitioner and no evidence has come on record.The petitioner is not involved in any other case and challan is yet to be presented. 5.

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

6.

Keeping in view that there is no other evidence collected against the petitioner except the disclosure statement made by the co-accused; no recovery has been effected from the petitioner; the challan is yet to be presented since the continuous detention of the petitioner would not serve the ends of justice, I deem it a fit case to grant the concession of regular bail to the petitioner during the pendency of the trial.

7.

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

-3satisfaction of the trial Court/Duty Magistrate/Chief Judicial Magistrate concerned.

8.

It is clarified that if on bail so granted through the instant order, the applicant is found indulging in any other criminal case it shall be open to the State to seek cancellation of his bail.

(H.S.GREWAL) 19.05.2025 JUDGE renu Whether speaking/reasoned :

Yes/No Whether reportable :

Yes/No