Raj Kumar Alias Raman Dhiman v. State Of Haryana

CRM-50189-2025 in/& 1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH CRM-50189-2025 in/& Date of decision: 19.12.2025 Raj Kumar alias Raman Dhiman ....Petitioner

Versus

State of Haryana

...Respondent

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMAN CHAUDHARY ***** Present :

Ms. Tamana Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner Mr. Gautam Kaile, DAG Haryana ***** AMAN CHAUDHARY, J. (ORAL) CRM-50189-2025 

 
   


   

 


 


 

 





 
  1.

Prayer in the present petition filed under Section 483 BNSS is for grant of regular bail to the petitioner in case FIR No.266 dated 20.06.2025, registered under Sections 22-C/29 of NDPS Act at Police Station Chandimandir, District Panchkula.

2.

Learned counsel contends that the petitioner has been in custody for about 6 months. His son aged 27 years old, is very unwell and undergoing lung treatment in the hospital. He alleges false implication in the case. His name surfaced based on the disclosure statement of co-accused Hardeep Singh, who had named co-accused Rupinder Singh @ Goldy, who has been granted bail by this Court vide order dated 02.12.2025 after being in custody for 5 months and 8 days. Co-accused Mahip Kumar and Sunil Kumar have been granted bail by this

CRM-50189-2025 in/& 2 Court vide orders dated 05.12.2025 and 08.12.2025. No recovery was effected from the petitioner. Challan was presented on 19.09.2025, but charges have not been framed. In all there are 20 prosecution witnesses. He is not involved in any other case.

3.

Learned State counsel opposes the bail on the ground that the petitioner had specifically named by his co-accused in his disclosure statement. However, he is unable to controvert the submissions with regard to stage, coaccused being on bail, the petitioner being not involved in other case and states that it has been verified that his son as stated by his learned counsel is under treatment for lungs.

4.

Heard.

5.










   


 

  

   

  


 


 
  



 


!!

 

 

hallan was presented on 19.09.2025, however, charges are yet to be framed;






  

    

 

 











 
 
   


!

 !


 
 





" 
#

    

$



  
  

  6.

The petitioner is ordered to be released on regular bail, subject to furnishing bail/surety bonds to the satisfaction of trial Court/Duty Magistrate concerned, if not required in any other case and shall abide by the following conditions:- (i) The petitioner will not tamper with the evidence during the trial.

(ii) The petitioner will not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witnesses.

CRM-50189-2025 in/& 3 (iii) The petitioner will appear before the trial Court on each and every date fixed, unless is exempted by a specific order of Court.

(iv) The petitioner shall not commit an offence similar to the offence of which, he is an accused, or for commission of which he is suspected of.

(v) The petitioner shall not directly or indirectly coerce, induce, threaten or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him/ her from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence in any manner.

(vi) The petitioner shall not in any manner misuse his liberty.

(vii) The petitioner shall furnish his address and mobile number by way of an affidavit to the trial Court and not change the same till conclusion of trial and if for any reasons, he seeks to change either of the aforesaid, it shall be done only with prior information to the learned trial Court.

(viii) The petitioner shall not leave the country without prior permission of the trial Court.

(ix) The trial Court/Duty Magistrate may impose any other condition, as deemed appropriate while releasing the petitioner.

7.

It is made abundantly clear that in case there is any breach of the aforesaid conditions, the State shall be at liberty to seek cancellation of bail as granted to the petitioner by this order.

8.

In view of the above, it is clarified that the observations made herein above are limited for the purpose of present proceedings and would not be construed as any opinion on the merits of the case and the trial would proceed independently of the aforesaid observations. (AMAN CHAUDHARY) JUDGE 19.12.2025 M.Kamra Whether speaking/reasoned :

Yes / No Whether reportable :

Yes / No