Ravi v. State Of Haryana

In the High Court for the States of Punjab and Haryana At Chandigarh CRM-M-29280-2025 Date of Decision:-04.08.2025 Ravi ... Petitioner

Versus

State of Haryana ... Respondent

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H. S. GREWAL Present:- Mr. Navkiran Singh, Advocate for the petitioner. ***** H. S. Grewal , J.(Oral) 1.

The present petition has been filed under Section 483 Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023 seeking regular bail in FIR No.808 dated 09.11.2024 under Section 20 (b)(ii)(c) of NDPS Act and Section 27(a) was added later on registered at Police Station Assandh, District Karnal. 2.

The case of the prosecution is that one Jony @ Manoj Kumar was arrested, who is the real brother of the present petitioner and 1.700 Kg of 'charas' was recovered from him. Thereafter, upon disclosure statement, he stated that being his real brother, the petitioner indulged him in this business and supplied the said narcotic substance of him. Thereafter, upon disclosure statement made by the petitioner, he named one Kuldeep Singh as the supplier of the said narcotic substance.

3.

Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner is being nominated as an accused only on the basis of disclosure statement, which would hardly carry any evidentiary value. It has been submitted that

CRM-M-29280-2025 (O&M) ( 2 ) the petitioner in any case has been behind the bars since last 08 months and 21 days and the trial has not commenced till date. The petitioner is not involved in any other case. None out of cited 21 prosecution witnesses have been examined till now.

4.

Notice of motion.

5.

Mr. Amrik Narwal, DAG, Haryana, accepts notice on behalf of the respondent-State and has filed custody certificate of the petitioner, which is taken on record.

6.

Learned counsel for the State vehemently opposes the grant of concession of regular bail by stating that the petitioner has undergone custody period of about a period of 08 months and 21 days and does not refute the fact that the trial is yet to commence as no prosecution witnesses has been examined so far. The petitioner is not involved in any other case. 7.

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the material placed on record.

8.

Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the present case and the fact that the custody period undergone by the petitioner; the petitioner is not involved in any other case and also the fact that trial is yet to commence as challan has not been presented till now, further incarceration of the petitioner would not serve the ends of justice and also conclusion of the trial is likely to take a long time. Therefore, this Court deems it a fit case to grant the concession of regular bail to the petitioner. 9.

Therefore, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the instant petition is allowed. The petitioner is granted concession of regular bail in the present case, on his furnishing requisite bonds to the

CRM-M-29280-2025 (O&M) ( 3 ) satisfaction of the trial Court/Duty Magistrate/ Chief Judicial Magistrate concerned. The pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of. 10.

It is however, made clear that in case during his bail, the petitioner indulges in any offence, the State shall be at liberty to file an application for cancellation of bail of the petitioner. 04.08.2025 ( H. S. Grewal ) geeta Judge Whether speaking /reasoned Yes / No Whether Reportable Yes / No