228 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision: 08.05.2025 Bikram Kumar Dangi @ Bikram @ Vikram ..... Petitioner Versus State of Haryana .......Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BHARDWAJ Present: Mr. Inderpreet Singh Kooner, Advocate, for the petitioner.

Mr. Tanuj Sharma, AAG, Haryana.

Rajesh Bhardwaj, J. (ORAL)

1. Petitioner has approached this Court by way of present second petition praying for granting regular bail in a case FIR No.484 dated 10.08.2023 under Sections 18 and 29 of the NDPS Act, 1985, at Police Station Gharaunda, District Karnal.

2. Succinctly, facts of the case are that on 10.08.2023, the police party while on patrolling received a secret information to the effect that Vikram (petitioner) and Basanti Devi are indulged in selling opium and it was informed that they had brought opium from Jharkhand and were sitting with the contraband (opium) below fly over in front of new Bus Stand and if raid is conducted, they could be arrested alongwith the contraband. On receiving the information, a raiding team was constituted. The raiding team reached at the place disclosed. Both the persons as disclosed in the secret information were found sitting there. One women holding a heavy orange colour bag in her right hand and one young boy were found sitting there. Both of them were overpowered. On asking, the boy disclosed his name as Vikram (petitioner) and the woman disclosed her name as Basanti Devi. They were suspected to be carrying some contraband in the bag being hold by the woman and thus, they were given offer to be searched. On conducting search of the bag, 4.5 kgs of opium was recovered. They failed to produce any licence regarding the possession of the same. Hence, the FIR was registered and they were arrested on the spot. On registration of the FIR, the investigation commenced. Sample taken were sent to the FSL. On completion of the investigation, the challan was presented. The petitioner approached the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Karnal praying for grant of regular bail. However, after hearing both the sides, the learned Court finding no merit in the same, dismissed the bail application filed by the petitioner vide order dated 26.02.2024. Thereafter, the petitioner approached this Court by way of filing CRM-M-13633-2024 for grant of regular bail, however, the same was dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 23.10.2024. Hence, the petitioner has again approached this Court praying for grant of regular bail by way of filing the present second petition. 3. It has been vehemently contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case. He submits that FIR in the present case has been filed on the basis of the secret information. He submits that recovery in the present case has been allegedly effected from a public place, however, no independent witness has been joined and thus, there is a violation of mandatory provisions of Section 42 of the NDPS Act. He submits that even otherwise, there is a violation of Section 50 of the NDPS Act as well. To buttress his arguments, he submits that recovery in the present case has been effected from the bag being carried by co-accused Basanti Devi, who has already been granted regular bail by this Court vide order dated 11.12.2024. He submits that though the petitioner was alleged to be with the co-accused, but no recovery has been effected from him. He submits that the petitioner is behind bars since the date of his arrest. He further submits that the petitioner has no criminal antecedents as he has never been involved in any other case except the present case. It is submitted that despite there being a long custody, the prosecution has not been able to conclude the trial. He, thus, submits that in the overall facts and circumstances of the case, the petitioner deserves to be granted bail.

4. Per contra, learned State counsel has vehemently opposed the submissions mad