Sukhwinder Singh @ Goga v. State Of Haryana

CRM-M-69908-2025 -1- 







  
 


 

 
!"
# $%&%!'(
)*
+,- ,./
  

 

 







 
  
(

 01
 23
 2
2
 


 




  !
" #$



%
 
 !
" #$






&

'
 !
"
" #$


 !
  (((

2
 /

4 15(
 



 !



 $
)*+

, 
&  
 
!
-.-+



!






 
%




/0
&
..)*

-1.2-.-3!





 $
--4$5!
-3

-6


& $$
7  

$ $
%$ 
"$!
26*3

    -+*

, 
&
!
-.-+
4
 
8,&95

 $

  !
7 $
  


2.

As per the allegations, on 26.01.2025, on receipt of an information about one abandoned verna car lying parked in the rice mill, a police party reached there and the aforementioned car which was bearing registration No. PB-70-H-7686 was found lying parked. The key of the car inside it. On conducting search of the car, recovery of 29400 tablets of Lomotil weighing 02 kg. 645 grams and 4920 capsules of Tramadol HCL weighing 03 kg. 247 grams was effected from the same. During the course of investigation,

CRM-M-69908-2025 -2co-accused Ratan Singh @ Rinku was arrested on 28.01.2025, who, while admitting his involvement in drugs peddling, disclosed that earlier, he used to purchase intoxicating drugs from one Sonu but later on, he started purchasing the drugs from Manjeet, as he was selling the same at a cheaper price. He also disclosed that for receiving consignment of drugs, he used to come to Gharaunda bus stand in the aforesaid car, which belonged to his friend Sukhwinder @ Goga i.e. the present petitioner and on the fateful day, he along with the present petitioner and one Dalbir Singh had come to Gharaunda in the aforesaid car. They met the accused Manjeet over there, who supplied them intoxicating drugs.

When they left after receiving the drugs from the accused Manjeet, after some time, they alighted from the car for urinating but in the meantime, a police car came there, on which, they ran away abandoning the car. On the basis of this disclosure statement of accused Rattan Singh, the present petitioner and accused Dalbir were nominated as additional accused. The petitioner was arrested on 17.04.2025. He too suffered disclosure statement admitting his involvement in the crime. The mobile phone used by him had been destroyed to cause disappearance of evidence of offence. The accused Manjeet and subsequently nominated accused Satish were also arrested. Investigation now stands completed and the petitioner along with coaccused, is facing trial for commission of aforementioned offences. 3.

It is argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that he has been falsely implicated in this case on the basis of disclosure statement of the coaccused Rattan Singh @ Rinku which cannot be considered to be admissible in evidence as against him. He was not named in the FIR and has been arrested

CRM-M-69908-2025 -3three months after the registration of FIR. There is no detail of any call record between the petitioner and himself. He had no connection with the co-accused Manjeet who is alleged to be the supplier of the contraband. He has clean antecedents. His further incarceration would not serve any useful purpose. The ingredients of Section 37 of NDPS Act are not attracted against him. It is, therefore, argued that the petition deserves to be allowed. 4.

Per contra, learned State counsel while relying upon the status report has argued that there are serious and specific allegations against the petitioner. In fact, it was his vehicle from which the recovery of the contraband was effected by the police. On the fateful day also, he was present in the vehicle but had managed to flee. He along with Rattan Singh had received supply of contraband from accused Manjeet on the day of occurrence. The petitioner has not been able to explain the presence of commercial quantity of contraband in his vehicle. The bar under Section 37 of NDPS Act has been fully attracted against him. The call details record of the mobile phones of the petitioner and co-accused have been obtained which show that conversation had been taking place between them on or before the day of incident. There are chances of petitioner's committing similar offences or absconding, if extended benefit of bail. Therefore, it is stressed that the petition does not deserve to be allowed.

5.

:
; 

  
$


  

$

%  1
:


%





$


%

$ 



%

$<$$

 


 $#




CRM-M-69908-2025 -4- $

$
=

>$
% 

%


 $
 

$










"





!

 


$<$$

 



% 

 ? $

>$

 
$


 
%

 
:



 
 













%


%

> 
$ $$ 


$

$#



%


 $
 

# $ 
:



$ $ 
:








$










%

  

$$ 


 
:

$

!









#

 


!

 
>$ 
 %

!

=

  $
$
 $#$




  
$

$ $$ 


$ !

; 



$



 
 



#

%   
"$$  !



 

@
0
!
 #

!
$  


%

#



%# 

%
$ 


>










$ 


  $

$


   *
$


 



 
%


$ !
    $!

!


 $













62
 7


 

)*
+,- ,./
   



     ! "    #$%    ! "