Bablu Jat v. State Of Haryana

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT

CHANDIGARH Reserved on : 02.02.2026 Pronounced on : 04.02.2026 Bablu Jat ..... Petitioner

VERSUS

State of Haryana ..... Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURYA PARTAP SINGH Argued by : Mr. Som Nath Saini, Advocate for the petitioner. ***** SURYA PARTAP SINGH, J.

For the commission of offence punishable under Section 18 of 'Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act', hereinafter being referred to as 'NDPS Act', the FIR No.162 dated 24.03.2025 has been lodged in Police Station Sector 13-17, Panipat District Panipat. The petitioner is being prosecuted for the commission of abovementioned offence and he has been arrested. The petitioner is in custody and, therefore, craving for bail.

2.

In nut-shell, the facts emerging from record are that the FIR of this case came into being at the instance of 'ASI Jai Karan', who had reported that on 24.03.2025, when he was heading a police team deputed for patrolling duty, on the basis of a tip-off given by a reliable source, he apprehended a person. According to above-named police official, the

abovesaid person disclosed his name as 'Bablu Jat' (petitioner herein), and when the search of his person was conducted as per laid down procedure, it was found that the abovesaid person was carrying 1 kg 4 gms of opium. 3.

It is the case of the prosecution that once the recovery of contraband had taken place, requisite formalities with regard to seizure & sealing of contraband, lodging of FIR, and arrest of accused were performed, and further investigation taken up.

4.

Heard.

5.

It has been contended on behalf of petitioner that petitioner is innocent having no nexus, whatsoever, with the commission of crime, and that he has been falsely implicated in the present case. The learned counsel for the petitioner has also contended that the prosecution case itself shows that the recovered contraband is much below the lower threshold meant for commercial quantity of the same type of contraband, and that the petitioner has already served imprisonment for a period of more ten months. According to learned counsel for the petitioner, nothing is left to be recovered from the possession of petitioner, and therefore, he is entitled for the benefit of bail.

6.

The learned State Counsel has controverted the abovementioned arguments. According to learned State Counsel, the allegations against the petitioner are of serious nature, and that the recovery of contraband had taken place from the conscious possession of petitioner.

As per learned State Counsel, in view of recovery of contraband from the possession of petitioner, he is not entitled for benefit of bail. 7.

The record has been perused carefully.

8.

A perusal of the record shows that there are several factors which are required to be taken into consideration at this stage. Those factors are: - i) that the petitioner is already in custody for a period of more than 10 months;

ii) that the quantity of contraband recovered in this case comes within the ambit of 'non-commercial quantity', and therefore, rigors of Section-37 of NDPS Act are not attracted in the present case;

iii) that nothing is left to be recovered from the possession of petitioner;

iv) that the trial is not likely to be concluded in near future; v) that detention of petitioner in judicial lock-up is not likely to serve any purpose;

vi) that there is nothing on record to show that if released on bail, the petitioner may tamper with the evidence or influence the witnesses; and vii) that there is nothing on record to show that if released on bail, the petitioner will not participate/cooperate in the trial. 9.

In the present case, the principles of law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of "Dataram versus State of Uttar Pradesh and another", 2018(2) R.C.R. (Criminal) 131, are relevant, wherein

it has been observed that "a fundamental postulate of criminal jurisprudence is the presumption of innocence, meaning thereby that a person is believed to be innocent until found guilty. However, there are instances in our criminal law where a reverse onus has been placed on an accused with regard to some specific offences but that is another matter and does not detract from the fundamental postulate in respect of other offences. Yet another important facet of our criminal jurisprudence is that the grant of bail is the general rule and putting a person in jail or in a prison or in a correction home (whichever expression one may wish to use) is an exception. Unfortunately, some of these basic principles appear to have been lost sight of with the result that more and more persons are being incarcerated and for longer periods.

This does not do any good to our criminal jurisprudence or to our society. There is no doubt that the grant or denial of bail is entirely the discretion of the judge considering a case but even so, the exercise of judicial discretion has been circumscribed by a large number of decisions rendered by this Court and by every High Court in the country. Yet, occasionally there is a necessity to introspect whether denying bail to an accused person is the right thing to do on the facts and in the circumstances of a case".

10.

The principles laid down by the Hon'ble the Supreme Court of India in the case of 'Satender Kumar Antil Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and Another', ( are also relevant in this case.

In the abovementioned case, it has been observed that "the rate of conviction in criminal cases in India is abysmally low. It appears to us that this factor

weighs on the mind of the Court while deciding the bail applications in a negative sense. Courts tend to think that the possibility of a conviction being nearer to rarity, bail applications will have to be decided strictly, contrary to legal principles. We cannot mix up consideration of a bail application, which is not punitive in nature with that of a possible adjudication by way of trial. On the contrary, an ultimate acquittal with continued custody would be a case of grave injustice".

11.

Recently, in the case of 'Tapas Kumar Palit Vs. State of Chhattisgarh', 2025 SCC Online SC 322, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has observed that "if an accused is to get a final verdict after incarceration of six to seven years in jail as an undertrial prisoner, then, definitely, it could be said that his right to have a speedy trial under Article 21 of the Constitution has been infringed". It has also been observed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the abovementioned case that "delays are bad for the accused and extremely bad for the victims, for Indian society and for the credibility of our justice system, which is valued. Judges are the masters of their Courtrooms and the Criminal Procedure Code provides many tools for the Judges to use in order to ensure that cases proceed efficiently".

12.

To elucidate further, this Court is conscious of the basic and fundamental principle of law that right to speedy trial is a part of reasonable, fair and just procedure enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. This constitutional right cannot be denied to the accused as mandated

by Hon'ble Apex court in "Balwinder Singh versus State of Punjab and Another", 2024 SCC Online SC 4354.

13.

If the cumulative effect of all the abovementioned factors, involved in the instant case, is taken into consideration, it leads to a conclusion that the petitioner is entitled for the benefit of bail, and that the present petition deserves to be allowed.

14.

Accordingly, without commenting anything on the merits of the case, the present petition is hereby allowed. The petitioner is hereby ordered to be released on bail on his furnishing personal bond and surety bond(s) to the satisfaction of learned trial Court. However the abovementioned concession shall be subject to following conditions:- (i) that the petitioner shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case, so as to dissuade him to disclose such facts to the Court or to any other authority.

(ii) that the petitioner shall at the time of execution of bond, furnish the address to the Court concerned and , till the final decision of the trial;

and (iii) that the petitioner shall not leave India without prior permission of the trial Court.

(SURYA PARTAP SINGH) JUDGE 04.02.2026 Gaurav Thakur Whether speaking / reasoned Yes/No Whether Reportable Yes/No