Mandeep v. State Of Haryana

IN THE PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT

AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision: 02.12.2025 Mandeep ... Petitioner

Versus

State of Haryana ... Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE YASHVIR SINGH RATHOR

Present:

Mr. Aman Mehta, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Ramesh Kumar Ambavta, DAG, Haryana assisted by PSI Ajay Singh.

**** YASHVIR SINGH RATHOR, J. (ORAL) Present petition under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 has been filed for grant of regular bail to the petitioner in case FIR No.185 dated 15.05.2025, under Section 22-C of NDPS Act, 1985 (Section 27-A of NDPS Act added later on), registered at Police Station City Tohana District Fatehabad.

2.

Brief facts of the prosecution case are that one person namely Rakesh Kumar @ Kalu was apprehended by the police party on 15.05.2025 and 395 grams of Alprazolam was recovered from his possession. On interrogation, he disclosed that contraband was supplied to him by Rajpal @ Pali. Thereafter, said Rajpal @ Pali was arrested on 18.05.2025, who during interrogation suffered disclosure statement that he had purchased the contraband from one Deepak @ Kala. Thereafter, on interrogation, Deepak @ Kala disclosed that he purchased the contraband from the petitioner Mandeep,

who bought the contraband from Delhi. Thereafter, petitioner was apprehended on 09.07.2025. After completion of investigation, Final Report was presented on 31.10.2025.

4.

I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned State counsel and have gone through the record.

5.

Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case. The contraband was recovered from Rakesh Kumar @ Kalu, who had nominated one Rajpal @ Pali as the supplier and after the said Rajpal @ Pali was arrested, he nominated one Deepak @ Kala as supplier, who thereafter nominated the petitioner as supplier. No contraband has been recovered from the possession of the petitioner and as such, rigors of Section 37 of the NDPS Act are not attracted against him. Petitioner is in custody since 09.07.2025. Learned counsel next contended that final report/challan has already been presented after completion of investigation and the trial is likely to take a long time to conclude and further detention of the petitioner is not required and he may be released on bail. 6.

On the other hand, learned State Counsel has opposed the bail and argued that in view of the gravity of the offence, petitioner does not deserve the concession of bail.

7.

Petitioner is in custody since 09.07.2025 and is not involved in any other case of similar nature and has clean antecedents. The recovery of 395 grams of contraband was effected from co-accused Rakesh Kumar @ Kalu, who nominated one Rajpal @ Pali as supplier. Said Rajpal @ Pali nominated Deepak @ Kala as supplier, who further nominated the petitioner

as supplier. Since no recovery has been effected from the petitioner, rigors of Section 37 of NDPS Act are not attracted against the petitioner. Challan has already been presented after completion of investigation. Trial is likely to take a long time to conclude and further detention of the petitioner is thus not required and he deserves to be released on bail. 8.

Having regard to the aforesaid factual position, but without commenting anything upon the merits of the case, the present petition is allowed and petitioner is ordered to be released on bail on furnishing bail bonds and surety bonds to the satisfaction of learned Trial Court concerned, on usual terms and conditions.

02.12 2025 (YASHVIR SINGH RATHOR) sonia JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/No