IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Parbhat Kusulia ...Petitioner Versus State of Haryana ...Respondent Sr. No. Particulars Details 1 The date when the judgment is reserved 24.03.2026 2 The date when the judgment is pronounced 27.03.2026 3 The date when the judgment is uploaded on the website 27.03.2026 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. Sandeep Kumar Tada, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Neeraj Poswal, AAG, 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 FIR No. 44 dated 24.01.2025, registered under Section 20(b)(ii)(c) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short ‘NDPS Act’) [Sections 25, 27 and 29 of the NDPS Act and Section 347(1) of BNS added later on] at Police Station Kharkhoda, District Sonipat.

2. Brief facts of the case relevant for the disposal of the present petition are that on 24.01.2025, on the basis of a secret information, co-

accused Rakesh @ Jeldar, while sitting in a parked car bearing registration number HR-26-CM-5036, was apprehended by a police party and recovery of 117.57 kgs. of Ganja, which was kept in 57 different sacks in the said car, was effected. The recovered contraband and the said car were taken into possession by the police. Since the accused could not produce any valid license or permit to keep in his possession the recovered contraband, he was formally arrested at the spot. He suffered disclosure statement admitting his involvement in the subject crime and also disclosed that he along with co- accused Ankit and Dharam Singh had procured the recovered contraband from the present petitioner. Co-accused Dharam Singh and Ankit were arrested on 27.01.2025 and 19.03.2025, respectively. The petitioner was also arrested on 28.03.2025. Investigation now stands completed and challan has been filed. The petitioner along with the co-accused is facing trial for commission of aforementioned offences.

3. It is argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that he was neither found at the spot nor was named in the FIR. He has been nominated in this case on the basis of the disclosure statement suffered by the co- accused, which cannot be considered to be admissible in evidence. No subsequent recovery has been effected from him. There is nothing on record to show that the petitioner was involved in the subject crime in any manner with the co-accused. Even otherwise, investigation has since been completed and challan has been filed. Conclusion of trial is likely to take considerable time as only 01 prosecution witness out of total 25 witnesses has been examined so far. His involvement in one more case cannot be made a ground for denying him the benefit of bail in the given circumstances. The petitioner is in custody since long. 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 released on regular bail.

4. Status report along with the custody certificate of the petitioner has been filed by the respondent-State. Learned State counsel has argued that keeping in view the gravity of the allegations levelled against the petitioner as well as his criminal antecedents, he is not entitled to get benefit of bail as Section 37 of the NDPS Act would be attracted in this case. It is, thus, argued that the petition is liable to be dismissed.

5. This Court has heard the rival submissions.

6. The well settled proposition of law is that the Court while considering an application for grant of bail has to keep certain factors in mind, such as, whether there is a prima facie case or reasonable ground to believe that the accused has