IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Sinderpal Singh @ Sinder ...Petitioner Versus State of Haryana ...Respondent Sr. No. Particulars Details 1 The date when the judgment is reserved 17.03.2026 2 The date when the judgment is pronounced 18.03.2026 3 The date when the judgment is uploaded on the website 18.03.2026 Whether only operative part of the judgment is pronounced or full

4 Full judgment is pronounced The delay, if any, of the pronouncement of full judgment, and Not

5 reasons thereof applicable CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANISHA BATRA Present:- Mr. Ruhani Chadha, Advocate for the petitioner.

Ms. Himani Arora, DAG, Haryana.

MANISHA BATRA, J.

1. Prayer in this petition, filed under Section 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, is for grant of regular bail to the petitioner in case arising out of FIR No. 239 dated 12.07.2024, registered under Sections 15(c) and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short ‘NDPS Act’) at Police Station Civil Lines, Jind, District Jind.

2. Brief facts of the case relevant for the disposal of the present petition are that on 12.07.2024, on the basis of a secret information, the petitioner was apprehended by a police and recovery of 898 kgs. of poppy husk was effected from him, which was kept in his rented house. He suffered a disclosure statement nominating Rinku Singh as his associate. Rinku was also arrested on the same day. Upon interrogation, Rinku disclosed that he had brought the recovered contraband from co-accused ManoranjanYadav from Jharkhand in a truck bearing registration number PB-11-CR-9741. During investigation, it surfaced that the said truck was driven by one Amarjeet Sharma. He was arrested and the aforesaid truck was taken into possession. He was found to be the owner of the said truck. Some other persons were also nominated and arrested in this case. After completion of necessary investigation and usual formalities, challan was presented in the Court and presently, the petitioner along with co-accused 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. A false recovery was planted upon him. He is in custody since 12.07.2024. Investigation has since been completed and challan has been filed. Conclusion of trial is likely to take time as only one out of total twenty one prosecution witnesses has been examined so far. His prolonged detention entitles him to seek bail. Co-accused Amarjeet Sharma, Rinku Singh and Manoranjan Yadav have already been granted concession of regular bail by this Court. On parity, he too deserves to be given the same benefit. No useful purpose would be served by keeping him in custody anymore. Therefore, it is urged that the petition deserves to be allowed and the petitioner deserves to be granted benefit of regular bail.

4. Status report has been filed on behalf of the respondent-State. Learned State counsel has argued that keeping in view the gravity of the allegations levelled against the petitioner, his criminal antecedents as well as the fact that commercial quantity of the contraband was recovered from the petitioner thereby attracting bar contained in Section 37 of the NDPS Act, he is not entitled to get benefit of bail. Hence, it is urged that the petition is liable to be dismissed.

5. This Court has heard the rival submissions.

6. The petitioner is alleged to have been found in conscious possession of commercial quantity of the contraband on 12.07.2024. The petitioner has been in custody since 12.07.2024. Though, the allegations prima facie make out a case for commission of subject offences against the petitioner, however, on a perusal of the record, it is apparent that there are no chances of conclusion of the trial in near future and it will take considerable time as only one prosecution witness out of total twenty one witnesses has been examined so far. Co-accused Ama