##PAGE1##

CRM-M-28228-2025 1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

159

CRM-M-28228-2025 Decided on : 23.03.2026

SANDEEP ALIAS DHANCHU ......Petitioner

Versus STATE OF HARYANA

......Respondent

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY VASHISTH

Present: Mr. Amit Choudhary, Advocate, for the petitioner.

Mr. Pawan Kumar Jhanda, Sr. DAG, Haryana.

****

SANJAY VASHISTH, J.

1. Present petition has been filed by the petitioner, seeking grant of regular bail, in case, FIR No.141, dated 26.02.2025, under Sections 29/27(a) of the NDPS Act and 77 of Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015, registered at Police Station HTM

Hisar, District Hisar.

2. After hearing the submissions addressed by counsel for the

petitioner, on 27.11.2025, following order was passed:- “2. Counsel for the petitioner contends that FIR was registered on the basis of secret information received by the police. Upon conducting raid, five accused persons, namely Deepak, Ashish, Mayank, Jatin and Prince, were apprehended. It was

LAVISHA

2026.03.24 16:13 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document PHHC, Chandigarh

CRM-M-28228-2025 2

subsequently acknowledged that all five had consumed ganja. After their arrest, the accused disclosed that ganja consumed by them had been supplied by the present petitioner, who had in turn procured it from one Arun Kumar. Thus, total seven

persons, including the petitioner, are facing trial.

3. It is further argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that no narcotic drug or psychotropic substance was recovered from the possession of any of the accused persons. The prosecution’s case is solely based on the alleged consumption of ganja by the five apprehended individuals. Moreover, it is stated that out of those five persons, two were found to be juveniles, thereby attracting Section 77 of Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 in addition to the provisions of the NDPS

Act.

4. This Court seeks to apprise itself as to whether mere consumption of a narcotic substance or contraband constitutes an offence under the NDPS Act, and if so, under which provision, and what maximum sentence may be imposed for such an

offence.

5. At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner seeks some time to study the relevant statutory provisions and thereafter, assist this Court on

the aforesaid issue.

6. List again on 28.11.2025.

7. To be shown in the urgent list.

8. To be taken up as first case of the day, at

10.00 A.M.”

3. Again, on 28.11.2025, petitioner was released on interim

bail, by observing as under:-

“2. In compliance with the previous order dated 27.11.2025 passed by this Court, and with reference to Section 27(a) of NDPS Act, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that ganja is included as a notified psychotropic substance under the said provision. Therefore, the alleged consumption of ganja by the petitioner, as stated in the FIR, would attract a maximum punishment of one year or a fine

up to Rs.20,000, or both.

3. It is further submitted that petitioner is already in custody since 29.02.2025, i.e., for nearly

eight months.

However, counsel prays for some time to verify the relevant Central Government notification

LAVISHA

2026.03.24 16:13 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document PHHC, Chandigarh

CRM-M-28228-2025 3

under which ganja is classified as a psychotropic substance for the purpose of Section 27(a) of the

NDPS Act.

4. With regard to Section 77 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015, counsel for the petitioner argues that there is not even an iota of evidence to suggest that petitioner, aged about 27 years, had provided or facilitated the consumption of ganja to the two juveniles/CCLs. Hence, the said provision, which is punishable with imprisonment up to seven years, would not be

attracted in the present case.

5. It is also argued, and not disputed by learned State counsel, that no narcotic substance/contraband or drug has been recovered from the petition