Dharuv Mehra Alias Dhruv Alias Bhannu v. State Of Punjab

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH Date of decision: 13.01.2026 DHARUV MEHRA @ DHRUV @ BHANNU ...PETITIONER V/S STATE OF PUNJAB ...RESPONDENT CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUBHAS MEHLA

Present:

Mr. Umesh Aggarwal, Advocate for the applicant/petitioner.

Mr. Surinderjit Singh Nahar, AAG, Punjab.

**** SUBHAS MEHLA, J. (ORAL) 1.

By way of the present petition, the petitioner is seeking regular bail in FIR No.177 dated 19.06.2025 under Sections 25 of Arms Act, (Sections 21/27-A/29/61/85 of NDPS Act, 1985 were added later on) registered at Police Station Islamabad (Annexure P-1).

2.

Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case. He further submitted that the alleged contraband recovered from the petitioner falls within the category of intermediate quantity (i.e., 100 grams of heroin). It is further submitted that the co-accused, namely Aman @ Vishu, has already been granted bail by this Court vide order dated 31.10.2025. Furthermore, the petitioner is not involved in any other criminal activity, except the present case and has been in custody since 19.06.2025 i.e. more than 07 months. Learned counsel further submitted

that the investigation has been completed and the trial will take sufficient time to conclude and no fruitful purpose would be served by keeping him in custody for any further period. Lastly, there is no possibility of tampering with evidence, as all the witnesses are police officers. 3.

Learned State counsel appeared on advance notice produced the custody certificate of the petitioner, which is taken on record. Learned State counsel vehemently opposed the prayer for grant of regular bail to the petitioner by submitting that 100 grams of heroin, 2 live cartridges of .30 bore and drug money of Rs.10,000/- were recovered from the petitioner. However, he does not dispute the fact that the alleged recoveries fall within the category of intermediate quantity, nor does he dispute that the petitioner is not involved in any other criminal case except the present one. Learned State counsel further submits that the petitioner does not deserve the concession of regular bail and prays for dismissal of the present petition. 5.

Heard.

6.

Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case and the fact that the investigation qua the present petitioner has already been completed; the alleged contraband falls under the category of intermediate quantity; the petitioner is in custody since 19.06.2025 i.e for the last more than seven months; the petitioner is not involved in any other case except the present; co-accused has already been granted bail vide order dated 31.10.2025; trial will take sufficient time to conclude and no fruitful purpose would be served by keeping him in custody for any further period, as concession of bail cannot be denied just as measure of punishment as culpability of the accused

will be decided at the final stage by the trial Court after appreciating the evidences adduced by both sides and it is trite principle of criminal jurisprudence that bail is rule, jail is an exception, this Court deems it a fit case to grant the concession of regular bail to the petitioner. 7.

Therefore, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the instant petition is allowed. The petitioner is ordered to be released on regular bail on his furnishing requisite bonds to the satisfaction of the trial Court/Duty Magistrate/Chief Judicial Magistrate concerned. (SUBHAS MEHLA) January 13, 2026 JUDGE Kusum (i) Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No (ii) Whether reportable Yes/No