← Library
High Court of Punjab and HaryanaCRM-M/69484/2025allowed

Whid Khan v. State Of Haryana

2025-12-15Mr. Justice Aman Chaudhary3 pages

 CRM-M-69484-2025 (O&M) 1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-69484-2025 (O&M) Date of decision: 15.12.2025 Wahid ....Petitioner

Versus

State of Haryana

...Respondent

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

Mr. Saleem Ahmed, 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.161 dated 03.05.2022, registered under Sections 20C, 27A, 29, 68F-61/85 of NDPS Act and 201 IPC at Police Station Ferozepur Jhirka, District Nuh. 2.

Learned counsel contends that the petitioner has been in custody for about 11 months. He alleges false implication. His name surfaced on the disclosure statement of co-accused Surender @ Sarpanch, who has been granted regular bail vide order dated 08.02.2024 as was also implicated based on a disclosure statement. Co-accused Mormal and Ansar, from whom the alleged contraband weighing 313.100 kg of ganja was allegedly recovered, have also been granted regular bail vide orders dated 11.01.2024, Annexure P-3 and 17.02.2024. All other co-accused namely Rahul, Sahid and Yusuf have been granted regular bail vide orders dated 10.08.2023, 14.11.2025 and 06.10.2025, Annexures P-2, P-4 and P-5 respectively. No recovery has been effected from the petitioner. Charges have been framed on 20.11.2025, however, out of 51

 CRM-M-69484-2025 (O&M) 2 prosecution witnesses, none has been examined. The petitioner is not involved in any other case.

3.

The custody certificate dated 14.12.2025, filed by the learned State counsel is taken on record. As per the same, the petitioner is behind bars for 10 months and 24 days.

4.

Learned State counsel opposes the bail on the ground that the petitioner has specifically named by co-accused, from whom commercial quantity of contraband was recovered. However, he is unable to controvert the submissions with regard to stage, co-accused having been granted bail and the petitioner being not involved in any other case. 5.

Heard.

6.

  

     

 

 

      

 

  

          

      

     



!  !    

     

  

     

  "

 

    #

      7.

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.

 CRM-M-69484-2025 (O&M) 3 (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 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.

8.

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.

9.

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 15.12.2025 M.Kamra Whether speaking/reasoned :

Yes / No Whether reportable :

Yes / No