Sandeep Alias Dhanchu v. State Of Haryana

CRM-M No.35767 of 2025 -1-

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M No.35767 of 2025 Date of decision: 22.07.2025 Sandeep @ Dhanchu .....Petitioner versus State of Haryana ..... Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BHARDWAJ ***** Present :- Mr. Amit Choudhary, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Tanuj Sharma, AAG, 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.64, dated 23.01.2025, under Sections 20(b) of NDPS Act, 1985 (Section 27(a) of NDPS Act added later on), registered at Police Station City Hansi, District Hisar. 2.

Succinctly the facts of the case are that the police party, while on patrolling on 23.01.2025, received a secret information to the effect that Akshay and Ghanshayam are involved in selling the intoxicating substance, i.e. Ganja. It was alleged that they would come to bus stand on their motorcycle and in case of raid, they could be arrested on the spot along with the contraband. On receiving the secret information reliable, the police laid the naka at the place disclosed. Both the persons as

motorcycle. On asking, they disclosed their names as Akshay and Ghanshayam. Their search was conducted and on conducting the search of Ghanshayam, no contraband was recovered. However from the search of Akshay, 11 Kgs 197 grams of Ganja was recovered from his jacket. 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. During the investigation, they made disclosure about Sandeep @ Dhanchu, i.e. the petitioner that the contraband was supplied by him. Thus the petitioner was also arrayed as an accused in the present case and was arrested on 05.03.2025.

The petitioner approached the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track, Special Court, NDPS Act, Hisar praying for the grant of bail. However after hearing both the sides, finding no merit in the same, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track, Special Court, NDPS Act, Hisar declined the petition filed by the petitioner vide order dated 02.05.2025. Hence being aggrieved, the petitioner is before this Court by way of filing the present petition praying for the grant of regular bail.

3.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently contended that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case. He has submitted that the petitioner has been named as an accused in the present case on the basis of disclosure statement of co-accused, however the same is not an admissible evidence. He has submitted that the contraband weighing 1 Kgs 197 grams was recovered from the co-accused and both of them are already on bail. He has submitted that even otherwise the

and thus, the provisions of Section 37 of NDPS Act are not attracted. He has submitted that in the facts and circumstances, the petitioner deserves to be granted bail.

4.

Per contra, learned counsel for the State however has opposed the submissions made by counsel for the petitioner. He, on instructions, has submitted that the petitioner is a habitual offender, who is already facing trial in 04 other cases. He has submitted that during the investigation, co-accused made the disclosure statement that the contraband recovered from them was supplied by the petitioner. He, on instructions, has submitted that the investigation is complete. He has produced custody certificate of the petitioner today in the Court and the same is taken on record. He has further submitted that the petitioner is involved in 01 other case.

5.

Heard.

6.

After hearing learned counsel for the parties and perusing the record, it is deciphered that the petitioner has been arrayed as an accused in the present case on the basis of disclosure statement of co-accused. Both the co-accused, from whom the recovery of contraband weighing 1 Kg 197 grams was recovered, which is a non commercial quantity, have already been granted bail by the learned trial Court. The petitioner though is involved in other cases as submitted before this Court, however the same in itself cannot be a ground for non-consideration of the bail. The investigation already stands completed. As per the custody certificate filed, the petitioner has suffered incarceration of 04 months and 19 days as on 22.07.2025.

the conclusion of the trial and on the appreciation of evidence to be led by both the parties before the trial Court.

8.

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. 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. Nothing said herein shall be treated as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case. 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.

(RAJESH BHARDWAJ) 22.07.2025 JUDGE rittu Whether speaking/reasoned :

Yes/No Whether reportable :

Yes/No