Shankar v. State Of Haryana

-1IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of decision: 13.11.2025 Shankar ....Petitioner

Versus

State of Haryana

...Respondent

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

Mr. Ajay Kadyan, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. B.S. Saroha, DAG, Haryana.

***** AMAN CHAUDHARY. J.

CRM-30929-2025 Allowed as prayed for.

CRM-M- 59442 -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.388 dated 18.07.2023 (P-1), registered under Sections 22(c)/29 of NDPS, 1985 at Police Station Sector-29, Panipat.

2.

Learned counsel contends that the petitioner, aged 26 years, has been in custody for 2 year and about 4 months. He alleges false implication in this case. The alleged recovery effected from him is of 49 Buprenorphine Injection 2 ML and 60 Avil injections, while he could possess 100 injections without medical prescription as per Rule 66(2) of the NDPS Act and relies on judgment of this

-2Court in case Saleem Mohd. V. State of Punjab, 2015(25) R.C.R. (Criminal)

816. Co-accused Aas Mohd @ Ashu has been granted regular bail vide order dated 30.07.2024 (Annexure P-2). Charges were framed on 07.11.2024 and 2 out of 15 prosecution witnesses have been examined. He is involved in three more cases under NDPS Act, wherein he is on bail. Reliance is also placed on the judgment passed by Hon'ble The Supreme Court titled as Maulana Mohd. Amir Rashadi vs. State of U.P. and others, 2012(2) SCC 382. 3.

The custody certificate dated 12.11.2025, filed by the learned State counsel is taken on record. As per the same, the petitioner is behind bars for 2 year, 3 months and 24 days.

4.

Learned State counsel opposes the bail on the ground that petitioner was apprehended at the spot with commercial quantity of contraband and is a habitual offender. However, he is unable to controvert the submissions with regard to stage, co-accused having been enlarged on bail and the petitioner being on bail in other cases.

5.

Heard.

6.

Hon'ble The Supreme Court in the case of Maulana Mohd. Amir Rashadi (Supra)had held that, "As observed by the High Court, merely on the basis of criminal antecedents, the claim of the second respondent cannot be rejected. In other words, it is the duty of the Court to find out the role of the accused in the case in which he has been charged and other circumstances such as possibility of fleeing away from the jurisdiction of the Court, etc." 7.

Hon'ble The Supreme Court in Shariful Islam @ Sarif versus The State of West Bengal SLP (Crl.) No.4173/2022, decided on 04.08.2022, granted

-3bail to the petitioner in a case of recovery of commercial quantity of contraband, considering incarceration for over 1 year and 6 months and there being no likelihood of completion of trial in the near future, while the Division Bench of this Court in Bhupender Singh vs. Narcotic Control Bureau (2022) 2 RCR (Crl.) 706, observed with regard to achieving balance between right to speedy trial guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India and rigors of Section 37 of NDPS Act.

8.

This Court in the case of Balraj Singh vs. State of Punjab CRM-M57386-2022, on 14.12.2022 has followed the dictum laid down by Hon'ble The Supreme Court and granted the bail to the petitioner therein after he had undergone total custody of 1 year and 6 months and in Munasi Masih vs. State of Punjab, CRM-M-31504-2022, on 06.2.2023, wherein commercial quantity of contraband had been recovered but only 2 out of 13 PWs had been examined, allowed bail.

9.

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, in particular that the petitioner is in custody for 2 years 3 months and 24 days; on bail in other cases; co-accused on bail; though charges were framed on 07.11.2024, 13 PWs remain to be examined, the trial is likely to take a considerable time, further incarceration of the petitioner would be violative of his right enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution of India and the rigors of Section 37 of the NDPS Act can be diluted bearing in mind the right to a speedy trial, the present petition is allowed.

10. 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

-4conditions:- (i) The petitioner will not tamper with the evidence during the trial.

(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.

11.

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.

12.

In view of the above, it is clarified that the observations made herein

-5above 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 13.11.2025 Vishal Vardhan Whether speaking/reasoned :

Yes / No Whether reportable :

Yes / No