215 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision: 29.08.2025 Naveen ..... Petitioner Versus State of Haryana .......Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BHARDWAJ Present: Ms. Apurva Walia, Advocate, for Mr. Saurav Bhatia, Advocate, for the petitioner.

Ms. Diya Sodhi, Sr. DAG, Haryana.

Rajesh Bhardwaj, J. (ORAL)

1. Petitioner has approached by way of filing the present petition praying for grant of regular bail in case FIR No.334 dated 07.08.2024 under Section 21(C) of NDPS, 1985 (offence under Sections 27A, 29 of NDPS Act added lateron) and Section 238, BNS, 2023, registered at Police Station Old Subji Mandi, District Rohtak.

2. Succinctly, facts of the case are that on 07.08.2024, the police party while on patrolling received a secret information to the effect that Naveen (petitioner) son of Hawa Singh, is indulged in selling intoxicant substance. It was informed that he would be coming on his motorcycle towards the street of ration depot in front of Saini College. In case of barricading, he could be arrested alongwith the contraband. On receiving the secret information, a raiding team was constituted and raid was conducted at the disclosed place. A person as informed was seen coming on the motorcycle and he was stopped. He was suspected to be carrying some contraband and thus, search was conducted. On conducting the search of his right pocket of lower, 256 grams of heroin was recovered. He failed to produce the licence regarding the possession of the same and thus, on the registration of the FIR, he was arrested on the spot. The investigation commenced. Samples taken were sent to the FSL. The petitioner approached the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Rohtak 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 18.03.2025. Hence, the petitioner has approached this Court praying for grant of regular bail by way of filing the present petition.

3. It has been vehemently contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case. She has submitted that the FIR has been registered on the basis of secret information, however, there is violation of mandatory provisions of Section 42 of the NDPS Act. She submits that recovery has been effected from the pocket of the petitioner and thus, admittedly, recovery is from the person of the petitioner, but there is violation of mandatory provisions of Section 50 of the NDPS Act. She submits that no independent witness has been joined at the time of effecting recovery. To buttress her arguments, she submits that even otherwise the alleged recovery is 256 grams of heroin, which is marginally above the commercial quantity. She submits that though the petitioner is falsely implicated in two other cases, however, he is on bail in those cases. It is submitted that the petitioner is behind bars since the date of his arrest, however, there is no material progress in the trial. She, thus, submits that the petitioner deserves the concession of regular bail.

4. Per contra, learned State counsel has vehemently opposed the submissions made by counsel for the petitioner. She has submitted that on due compliance of the provisions of the NDPS Act, recovery of 256 grams of heroin was effected from the pocket of petitioner, which is commercial quantity and thus, provisions of Section 37 of the NDPS Act are attracted. On instructions, she has submitted that out of 17 prosecution witnesses, 02 witnesses have been examined till date. She has placed on record the custody certificate of the petitioner.

5. After hearing counsel for the parties and perusing the record, it is inferred that the petitioner is behind bars since 07.08.2024. The alleged recovery from the petitioner is 256 grams of heroin, which as argued is marginally above the commercial quantity. Custody certificate of t