Raj Kapoor Mahato v. State Of Haryana

-1IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision: 26.05.2026 RAJ KAPOOR MAHATO ... PETITIONER

VERSUS

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

This petition has been filed under section 483 B.N.S.S. (earlier 439 Cr.P.C.) for grant of interim regular bail in case FIR No. 376 dated 30.10.2025 under Section 18-B (later on added Section 29 of NDPS ) Act registered at Police Station- Sadar Yamuna Nagar Haryana. 2.

The case of the prosecution is that co-accused namely Pardeep Kumar Rana was apprehended alongwith 3Kg 750 grams of opium. During investigation, the petitioner was nominated as an accused on the basis of the disclosure statement made by the co-accused and was accordingly implicated in the present case.

3.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has not been named in the FIR and has been nominated solely on the basis of the disclosure statement of co-accused, which is not admissible in evidence against him. He further submits that nothing has been recovered from the possession of

-2the petitioner. It is further submitted that the petitioner is in custody since 01.11.2025 and prays for grant of regular bail. 4.

Notice of motion.

5.

Ms. Malvika Singh, DAG,Haryana accepts notice on behalf of the respondent-State and has vehemently opposed the prayer for grant of regular bail on the ground that the allegations against the petitioner are serious in nature. She further submits that telephone calls were exchanged between the petitioner and other co-accused. She has filed the custody certificate of the petitioner in Court today, which is taken on record. As per the custody certificate, the petitioner has been in custody for the last 06 months and 21 day and is not involved in any other cases.

6.

I have heard the submissions made by the parties and gone through the record.

7.

After hearing the rival contentions and considering the fact that in the case in hand, the petitioner is in custody for the last 06 months and 21 days; the petitioner is not involved in any other case; that apart from the disclosure statement, there is no other substantive evidence to connect the petitioner with the recovery effected from the co-accused coupled with the fact that the trial is likely to take considerable time, this Court is of the view that no useful purpose would be served by further incarceration of the petitioner. Accordingly, the petitioner is granted the concession of regular bail during the pendency of the trial.

8.

Therefore, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the instant petition is allowed. The petitioner is ordered to be released on

-3regular bail on his furnishing requisite bail/surety bonds to the satisfaction of the trial Court/Duty Magistrate concerned.

9.

Nothing discussed hereinabove shall be construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case.

10.

It is clarified that if while on bail so granted through the instant order, the petitioner is found indulged in any other criminal case/activity, it shall be open to the State to seek cancellation of his bail. 26.05.2026 (H.S.GREWAL) renu JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned :

Yes/No Whether reportable:

Yes/No