Rekha Alias Suman v. State Of Haryana

-1IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision: 29.11.2025 REKHA @ SUMAN ... PETITIONER

VERSUS

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

This petition has been filed under Section 483 of the BNSS for grant of regular bail to the petitioner in FIR No. 188 dated 17.03.2024 under Section 20(B)II-C and 61 of NDPS Act registered at Police Station, City, Rohtak.

2.

The allegations against the petitioner are that he was found in possession of 1.5 kg charas.

3.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case and has no connection with commission of the offence as alleged. She further submits that the petitioner is not involved in any other case under the NDPS Act. 4.

Notice of motion.

5.

Mr. Vijay Kumar, AAG, Haryana accepts notice on behalf of the respondent-State. He has filed the reply in the Court today and

-2the same is taken on record. He further submits that the petitioner is in custody for the last 01 year 07 months and 20 days as on 08.11.2025; challan has been presented on 22.09.2024 and no prosecution witness has been examined so far. He has not disputed that the petitioner is not involved in any other case.

6.

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

7.

This Court has noticed that despite service by way of summons, bailable warrants and non-bailable warrants, the police officials are not appearing as witnesses deliberately in the present case. In fact, it is a matter of grave concern for all the Courts. Apart from that, it not only amounts to interference in the administration of justice, but is also violative of right of accused under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. Even this intentional absence of official witnesses helps the accused in claiming that he had been incarcerated for a longer period and such a plea serves an an additional ground in favour of the petitioner to secure her bail.

8.

Having considered the period of custody already undergone by the petitioner, the fact that the trial is yet to commence and it will take a considerable time to conclude and the apparent inability of the prosecution to secure the presence of its own official witnesses despite repeated opportunities, resulting in an avoidable delay, this Court is of

-3the view that further incarceration of the petitioner would serve no fruitful purpose. Accordingly, this Court has left with no other option but to grant the concession of regular bail to the petitioner during the pendency of the trial.

9.

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 her furnishing requisite bail bonds, surety bonds to the satisfaction of the trial Court/Duty Magistrate/Chief Judicial Magistrate concerned.

10.

It is clarified that if on bail so granted through the instant order, the petitioner is found indugling in any other cirminal case it shall be open to the State to seek cancellation of her bail. (H.S.GREWAL) 29.11.2025 JUDGE renu Whether speaking/reasoned :

Yes/No Whether reportable :

Yes/No