Raju Bairagi v. State Of Haryana

CRM-M-63277-2025 (O&M) 1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-63277-2025 (O&M) Date of decision: 08.12.2025 Raju Bairagi ....Petitioner

Versus

State of Haryana

...Respondent

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

Mr. Amit Choudhary, 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 04.06.2024, registered under Section 18(b)/27A/29/31/61/85 of NDPS Act at Police Station City Hisar District Hisar.

2.

Learned counsel contends that the petitioner has been in custody for 1 year and about 6 months. He alleges false implication. The contraband is allegedly recovered under the bench, on which he along with 3 other co-accused are stated to be siting. It is thus debatable that he is in conscious possession of the contraband. The mandatory provisions of Section 42 of NDPS Act were not complied with. Co-accused on the disclosure statements, have been granted regular bail by this Court vide orders dated 27.09.2024, 23.04.2025, 19.08.2025 and 21.08.2025, Annexure P-2 to P-5 respectively. Charges have been framed on 04.02.2025, however, out of 30 prosecution witnesses, 6 have been examined. The petitioner is not involved in any other case.

CRM-M-63277-2025 (O&M) 2 3.

The custody certificate dated 05.12.2025, filed by the learned State counsel is taken on record. As per the same, the petitioner is behind bars for 1 year, 5 months and 27 days.

4.

Learned State counsel opposes the bail on the ground that the commercial quantity of contraband was recovered from the petitioner and his coaccused, who were apprehended at the spot as also Rs.1,80,000/- was transferred into the account of his wife. However, he is unable to controvert the submissions with regard to stage of the case, co-accused having been granted bail and the petitioner being not involved in any other case. 5.

Heard.

6.

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 bail 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.

7.

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,

CRM-M-63277-2025 (O&M) 3 allowed bail.

8.

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, in particular that the petitioner is in custody for the last 1 year, 5 months and 27 days; not involved in any other case; co-accused are on bail; charges were framed 04.02.2025 and 24 more prosecution witnesses 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. 9.

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.

(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

CRM-M-63277-2025 (O&M) 4 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.

10.

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.

11.

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 M.Kamra Whether speaking/reasoned :

Yes / No Whether reportable :

Yes / No