Satyanarayan v. State Of Haryana

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-63641-2024 Date of decision: May 12th, 2025 Satyanarayan .....Petitioner

Versus

State of Haryana .....Respondent

CORAM:

HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANJARI NEHRU KAUL

Present:

Mr. P.S. Sekhon, Advocate with Ms. Nidhi, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Rajat Gautam, Additional Advocate General, Haryana. MANJARI NEHRU KAUL , J. (ORAL) Petitioner is seeking the concession of regular bail in FIR No.335 dated 12.08.2024 under Section 22(c) of the NDPS Act, 1985, registered at Police Station Narnaund, District Hansi. 2.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the falsity of the prosecution case against the petitioner is evident from the fact that the FSL report is at total variance with the alleged recovery effected from the petitioner. In support, learned counsel has placed on record the certificate copy of the FSL report and a copy of order of learned JMIC passed in an application under Section 52-A of the NDPS Act. 3.

Learned State counsel, on instructions, has not been able to contest the order passed by the learned JMIC to an application under Section 52-A of the NDPS Act nor has he been able to contest the report of the RFSL, Hisar. However, learned State counsel has submitted that PUNEET SACHDEVA 2025.05.13 09:40 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh

CRM-M-63641-2024 -2the recovery at the time of lodging of the FIR has been classified as commercial under the NDPS Act.

4.

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material placed on record.

5.

The petitioner has been in custody since 12.08.2024. After the charges were framed on 22.10.2024, only one prosecution witness out of the 14 has been examined. Prima facie, the case as projected by the prosecution is not at variance with the report received from the RFSL.

6.

On a pointed query put to the learned State counsel, he has not disputed that the petitioner has no previous criminal antecedents. 7.

In the facts and circumstances as enumerated hereinabove, the instant petition is allowed and the petitioner be admitted to bail to the satisfaction of the trial Court/Duty Magistrate concerned. However, it is made clear that anything observed hereinabove shall not be construed to be an expression of opinion on the merits of the case. 8.

Needless to say, in case the petitioner misuses the concession of bail, the State would be at liberty to seek cancellation of the same.

May 12th, 2025 (MANJARI NEHRU KAUL) Puneet JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned :

Yes/No Whether reportable :

Yes/No PUNEET SACHDEVA 2025.05.13 09:40 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh