IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH -.-

CRM-M-65284-2025 (O&M) Date of Decision : 07.03.2026 Sonam Kumar Singla ....Petitioner VERSUS State of Haryana ....Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MANDEEP PANNU Present: Mr. Sauhard S. Hooda, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Sushil Bhardwaj, Addl. A.G Haryana with Ms. Jasmine Gill, AAG Haryana.

-.-

MANDEEP PANNU J. (Oral)

1. This is the second petition under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for grant of regular bail to the petitioner in case FIR No. 0054 dated 25.01.2025, registered under Section 22 (c) of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (Section 29 of NDPS Act added later on), registered at Police Station Krishna Gate Thanesar, District Kurukshetra.

2. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 24.01.2025, on the basis of a secret information, the police party apprehended co-accused Satbir Singh and Kapil Dev, who were travelling in a car bearing registration No. HR-07AA- 0185. The vehicle was allegedly being driven by Satbir Singh and Kapil Dev was sitting along with him. On search of the vehicle, 2160 capsules of AKS Primevon (90 strips containing 24 capsules each), weighing 1 Kg. 300 grams and 32 milligrams, allegedly containing Dicyclomine Hydrochloride, Tramadol Hydrochloride and Acetaminophen salt, which is a psychotropic substance listed at Sr. No. 238 ZH of the Schedule attached with the NDPS Act, were recovered. The present petitioner was not apprehended at the spot, and his name surfaced only during the disclosure statement of co-accused Satbir Singh and Kapil Dev, after which he was nominated as an accused in the present case. Thereafter, the present FIR was registered after allegedly complying with the necessary provisions of the NDPS Act.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is contended that the petitioner was not named in the FIR and was not present at the spot at the time of the alleged recovery. As per the prosecution case itself, the alleged recovery of 2160 capsules of Tramadol was effected from the car of co-accused Satbir Singh and Kapil Dev, who were apprehended on the spot. Learned counsel further submits that the petitioner has been nominated only on the basis of disclosure statements of the co- accused, which by themselves do not constitute substantive evidence in law. Apart from the said disclosure statements, there is no independent material available on record to connect the petitioner with the alleged offence. It is further submitted that the petitioner is in custody since 01.02.2025, the investigation stands completed, and the challan has already been presented before the learned trial Court. The trial of the case is likely to take considerable time. Learned counsel also submits that co-accused Sumit has already been granted the concession of regular bail by a co- ordinate Bench of this Court, whereas co-accused Arjun Bhola has been granted anticipatory bail, and therefore the petitioner is also entitled to bail on the principle of parity. It is also argued that although the first bail petition bearing CRM-M- 23082-2025 was dismissed on 25.09.2025, the petitioner has remained in custody for a substantial period thereafter, which constitutes a change in circumstance warranting consideration of the present second bail petition.

4. Per contra, learned State counsel has filed the custody certificate, which is taken on record. Learned State counsel opposes the prayer for grant of bail and submits that the allegations against the petitioner are serious in nature, as they relate to offences under the NDPS Act. It is further submitted that the petitioner has been nominated as an accused on the basis of disclosure statements of the co-accused, and as per the investigation conducted by the police, the petitioner is alleged to be a buyer of the contraband substance. However, learned State counsel does not dispute that