Gurpreet Singh Alias Joni Alias Surli v. State Of Haryana

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT

CHANDIGARH CRM-M No.32005 of 2026 Date of Decision:-02.07.2026 Gurpreet Singh @ Joni @ Surli .....Petitioner.

Versus

State of Haryana .....Respondent.

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIKRAM AGGARWAL ***** Present:- Mr. Kulwinder Singh Dhillon, Advocate for the petitioner.

Ms. Vasundhara Dalal Anand, Sr. DAG, Haryana. VIKRAM AGGARWAL, J. (ORAL) Prayer in the present petition preferred under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short the 'BNSS') is for the grant of regular bail to the petitioner in case FIR No.181 dated 31.07.2025 registered under Sections 22-C, 27-A and 31 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short the 'NDPS Act'), at Police Station City Ratia, District Fatehabad. 2.

Custody certificate filed by learned State counsel in Court is taken on record.

3.

On 31.07.2025, on the basis of a secret information, one Ashwani @ Ashu was apprehended and 12 strips (containing 10 tablets each) of Etizolam tablets 0.5 mg, total weighing 25 grams 77 milligrams,

CRM-M No.32005 of 2026 -2were recovered. During the course of investigation, the said Ashwani @ Ashu suffered a disclosure statement stating that he had purchased 06 strips of Etizolam tablets from the present petitioner and 03 strips from one co-accused Jagsir. The petitioner and Jagsir were arrested on 05.12.2205 and the petitioner is in custody since then.

4.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been falsely implicated only on the basis of disclosure statement of Ashwani @ Ashu and that no recovery was made from him. He further submits that the petitioner has clean antecedents; final report already stands submitted; he is in custody since 05.12.2025; trial will still take a sufficiently long time and no useful purpose would be served by keeping the petitioner in custody any longer.

5.

Per contra, learned State counsel has opposed the bail application stating that a commercial quantity of Etizolam was recovered from Ashwani @ Ashu, who stated to have purchased the same from the present petitioner and co-accused Jagsir, who is also in custody. She submits that under the circumstances, there would be no occasion to release the petitioner on bail.

6.

I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties.

7.

Concededly, the petitioner was arraigned as an accused on the basis of disclosure statement of the main accused Ashwani @ Ashu, who is in custody. No doubt, recovery of a commercial quantity of Etizolam was made from the main accused. However, even after the arrest of the

CRM-M No.32005 of 2026 -3petitioner, no recovery was made from him. He is in custody since 05.12.2025. Still further, final report stands submitted. Trial will still take a sufficiently long time. The petitioner has clean antecedents, no other case having been registered against him. This Court is, therefore, of the considered opinion that it is a fit case for the grant of regular bail to the petitioner.

8.

In view of the aforementioned facts and circumstances, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the present petition is allowed. The petitioner is ordered to be released on regular bail on his furnishing bail/surety bonds to the satisfaction of the concerned trial Court/Chief Judicial Magistrate/Duty Magistrate. (VIKRAM AGGARWAL) July 02, 2026 JUDGE Yag Dutt Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No Whether Reportable:

Yes/No