IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M No.11138 of 2025 (O&M)

Date of decision: 06.03.2025 Abhishek @ Chhabi ... Petitioner Versus State of Haryana ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MAHABIR SINGH SINDHU Present: Mr. Priyavrat Parashar, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Kiran Pal Singh, AAG, Haryana for the respondent.

****

MAHABIR SINGH SINDHU, J.

Present petition has been filed under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short ‘BNSS’) for setting aside the impugned bail condition/observation (if the applicant-accused is found indulged in any such case of similar nature, in future, the prosecution will be at liberty to seek the cancellation of bail), imposed vide order dated 04.01.2024 (P-2), passed by learned Special Court, Kaithal, while granting bail pending trial to the petitioner in FIR No.512 dated 27.11.2023 (P-1), under Sections 21(b) & 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short ‘NDPS’), registered at Police Station Kaithal City, District Kaithal, along with impugned order dated 15.02.2025 (P-7), whereby bail pending trial, granted to the petitioner, has been rejected.

(2) Briefly allegations are that:-

(2.1) Petitioner was arrested in the aforesaid FIR on 01.12.2023; but he was granted bail pending trial by learned Special Court, vide order dated

04.01.2024 (P-2).

(2.2) Later on, prosecution moved an application (P-3) for cancellation of order dated 04.01.2024 (supra) on the ground that he is found involved in two other cases under the NDPS Act i.e. FIR No.269 dated 25.06.2024, under Section 21(b) of the NDPS Act, Police Station Civil Line, Kaithal & FIR No.445 dated 09.11.2024, under Sections 21(b) & 29 of the NDPS Act, Police Station City, Kaithal.

(2.3) Learned Special Court accepted the application of prosecution and cancelled the bail of petitioner, while passing the impugned order.

Hence, present petition.

(3) Learned Counsel for the petitioner contends that learned Special Court cancelled the bail without there being any valid reason. Further contends that condition, imposed by learned Special Court, while granting bail vide order dated 04.01.2024 to the effect that “if the applicant-accused is found indulged in any such case of similar nature, in future, the prosecution will be at liberty to seek the cancellation of bail” is not legally impermissible in law and reference in this regard has been made to judgment dated 21.12.2023 of the Coordinate Bench in “Rajiya Versus State of Haryana, passed in CM-M-35903-2023. Also contends that in both the subsequent FIRs, petitioner was granted bail by learned Special Court and petitioner was regularly appearing during trial; therefore, there was no occasion to cancel the bail.

(4) Per contra, learned State Counsel, while opposing the prayer, submits that petitioner was granted bail subject to the specific condition that in case he is found to have been involved in any other similar case in future, then the prosecution would be at liberty to move an application for cancellation of bail. Further submits that it is a matter of record that petitioner was found involved in two cases under the NDPS Act and as on today, he is facing total four cases of similar nature; hence, he is a habitual offender and involved in the illicit sale & purchase of the narcotics. Also contended that such incidents are increasing day-by-day in the State of Haryana; thus, learned Special Court, after taking into consideration the material on record and hearing both sides, has rightly cancelled the bail.

(5) Heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused the paper-

book.

(6) It transpires that petitioner was granted bail by learned Special Court in FIR No.512 dated 27.11.2023 (P-1) and operative part of the order reads as under:-

“…………. However, in view of law laid down in Maulana Mohd. Amir Rashadi Vs. State of U.P. and another, 2012 (2) SCC 382 (SC) & Prabhakar Tewari Vs. State of U.P. and another 2020 (1) RCR (Criminal) 831