Govind Alias Govind Singh v. State Of Haryana
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-61568-2025 Decided on : 04.12.2025 Govind @ Govind Singh ...... Petitioner
Versus
State of Haryana ...... Respondent CORAM :
*** Present :
Mr. Sandeep Kotla, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. Mohit Chaudhary, AAG, Haryana for the respondent-State.
*** , J (ORAL) 1.
!" #!!$ %
& '"$ () !
!
$!!$ ( * *
*
(
*
*
) # ( !+
!
!
Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case and he has no concern with the said offence. He contends that the mandatory provisions of NDPS Act regarding search and seizure had not been followed. He further contends that there is no other evidence to connect the petitioner with the said crime. He contends that
the recovery effected from the petitioner is non-commercial in nature. The petitioner is in custody since 06.08.2025. He further contends that the investigation in the case is complete, challan stands presented, charges are yet to be framed, as such the trial will take a long time to conclude and no useful purpose would be served by keeping the petitioner behind bars. Therefore, it is urged that the petition deserves to be allowed. 4.
On the other hand, learned State counsel has filed the status report and custody certificate of the petitioner, which is taken on record. He has vehemently opposed the prayer for grant of bail by submitting that the offence committed by the petitioner is serious in nature and he was apprehended at the spot with the alleged contraband. He submits that the petitioner is involved in multiple other cases meaning thereby he is a habitual offender. 5.
Having heard learned counsel for the parties at length and after perusing the record of the case, it is evident that the petitioner is in custody for the last more than 03 months and 24 days; investigation is complete; challan stands presented, charges are yet to be framed, the recovery in the present case is non-commercial in nature; and the fact that trial may take a long time to conclude, no useful purpose would be served by detaining him in further custody. Keeping the petitioner in further detention without the prospect of the trial being concluded in the near future would be violative of his rights under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.
#!
, (
* + - & ./ )
(
0 ( (
& ' /
1!
& (
0 0
2 ( ( 3 4
, (
+ 5 (/ !" !
# $
* (
*
,
0 0
2
3 4!6 0
, ( 7 *87
!
!
!
8.
In view of the above, the present petition is allowed and the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail on his furnishing bail bonds/surety bonds to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court/Duty Magistrate/CJM concerned. It is clarified that nothing stated herein shall be construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case. ((
: 2