IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of decision: 07.07.2025 Naresh ....Petitioner V/s State of Haryana ....Respondent CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL Present: Mr. Sushil Sheoran, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Gurmeet Singh, AAG Haryana.

*****

SUMEET GOEL, J. (Oral)

1. Present petition has been filed under Section 483 of BNSS, 2023 seeking grant of regular bail to the petitioner in FIR No.3 dated 07.01.2025, under Sections 20/29 of the NDPS Act, registered at Police Station Machhroli, District Jhajjar.

2. The case set up in the FIR in question is that 35 kgs 350 grams of Ganja came to be recovered from one Ashok @ Chotu and Sandeep. Thereafter, upon a disclosure made by co-accused Ashok @ Chotu on

12.01.2025, the petitioner was arraigned as an accused.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has iterated that the story put forth by the prosecution is highly implausible, concocted and fabricated just to implicate the petitioner in a false case. Learned counsel has further iterated that the petitioner is not named in the FIR and has been implicated solely on the basis of disclosure statement of a co-accused, which is inadmissible under law. Moreover, the disclosure statement of the co- accused has been deliberately and improperly fabricated by the investigating agency while the petitioner has no involvement whatsoever in the alleged incident. Furthermore, there is no material on record to connect the petitioner with the alleged recovery and the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the instant case. According to learned counsel, the misuse of the procedural safeguards and reliance on inadmissible evidence highlights the malicious intent behind the action of the prosecution and warranting interference by this Court to release the petitioner from unjustified detention. It has been further submitted that the alleged recovery was not made from the petitioner but from some other persons. Based on the allegations outlined in the FIR, it is contended that no case is made against the petitioner, and the prosecution’s narrative appears to be an attempt to falsely implicate the petitioner. The learned counsel further maintains that the entire prosecution case relies on the testimony of official witnesses, raising doubts about the credibility of the prosecution’s account. Since the challan has already been filed before the competent Court of jurisdiction and hence no useful purpose would be served by keeping the petitioner in custody. In this view of the matter, learned counsel has prayed for grant of regular bail.

4. Per contra, learned State counsel has strenuously opposed the instant petition by arguing that the allegations against the petitioner are serious in nature. Learned State counsel has further submitted that the FIR in question pertains to recovery of 35 Kg 350 grams of Ganja (commercial quantity) and, therefore, the bar under Section 37 of the NDPS, 1985 is attracted. Furthermore, expressing concerns about the possibility of the petitioner fleeing from the trial proceedings, learned State counsel submits that petitioner ought not be granted the concession of regular bail. Learned State counsel has filed the custody certificate dated 04.07.2025 and has relied upon the involvement of the petitioner in 01 other case under Sections 279, 336, 186, 353, 120-B IPC and Section 61-1-14 of the Excise Act. He has, accordingly, sought for dismissal of the petition in hand.

5. I have heard learned counsel for the rival parties and have perused the available record.

6. Before delving further into the merits of the present matter, it would be germane to refer herein to a judgment passed by this Court in Anshul Sardana vs. State of Punjab: 2025:PHHC:004198, relevant whereof reads as under:

“6. At this juncture, it would be apposite to refer herein to a judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court titled as ‘Tofan Singh vs. State of Tamil Nadu, AIR 2020 Supreme Court 5592’, relevant whereof reads as under:

“155. We answ