Sunil Kumar v. State Of Haryana

CRM-M-56423-2025 (O&M) 1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-56423-2025 (O&M) Date of decision: 08.12.2025 Sunil Kumar ....Petitioner

Versus

State of Haryana

...Respondent

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

Mr. Sandeep Saini, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Gautam Kaile, DAG Haryana ***** AMAN CHAUDHARY, J. (ORAL) 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 05 months and 11 days. He alleges false implication in the case. Co-accused Hardeep Singh, from whom 6000 tablets of Lomotil were recovered, in his disclosure statement 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, and further disclosed the name of co-accused Raj Kumar @ Raman and the petitioner came to be involved based on his disclosure statement and co-accused Mahip Kumar, who was named in the disclosure statement of the

CRM-M-56423-2025 (O&M) 2 petitioner, was granted bail by this Court vide order dated 05.12.2025 after being in custody for 5 months and 8 days. No recovery was effected from the petitioner. Challan was presented on 19.09.2025, but charges have not been framed so far. In all there are 20 prosecution witnesses. He is not involved in any other case. 3.

The custody certificate dated 06.12.2025, filed by the learned State counsel is taken on record. As per the same, the petitioner is behind bars for 5 months and 11 days.

4.

Learned State counsel opposes the bail on the ground that the petitioner specifically named by his co-accused. However, he is unable to controvert the submissions with regard to stage of the trial, co-accused being on bail and the petitioner being not involved in other case. 5.

Heard.

6.

 


 

  





 




  


 









 




  








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

 
 

 


  
 






 
 




   



  


  





 






   

!


 

  

 "

7.

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.

CRM-M-56423-2025 (O&M) 3 (ii) The petitioner will not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witnesses.

(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.

8.

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.

9.

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 08.12.2025 dinesh Whether speaking/reasoned :

Yes / No Whether reportable :

Yes / No