IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

261 CRM-M-55071-2025 Decided on : 09.10.2025 RAHUL ......Petitioner Versus STATE OF HARYANA ......Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY VASHISTH Present: Mr. Sunil Goswami, Advocate, for the petitioner.

Mr. Pawan Kumar Jhanda, DAG, Haryana.

****

SANJAY VASHISTH, J.

1. The instant petition has been filed under Section 483 of BNSS, 2023 (earlier Section 439 Cr.P.C.), for grant of regular bail to the petitioner, during the pendency of trial, who has been booked in a criminal case arising out of First Information Report, as detailed hereunder:-

Name of FIR Date Section(s) Police District Petitioner(s) No. Station Rahul 044 17.02.2025 20(b)(ii)(C) of Narnaund, Hisar NDPS Act and Hansi (Section 27-A of NDPS Act added later on)

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in the present case, 1.14 kilograms of charas was allegedly recovered from the petitioner’s possession. Based on his disclosure statement, another accused, namely Ankit, was implicated. Subsequently, from the disclosure statement of co-accused Ankit, another accused, Ram Niwas, was named, and from Ram Niwas’s disclosure statement, name of another accused Sagar was implicated, being supplier of the recovered contraband.

3. Counsel for the petitioner further submits that other co- accused, Ram Niwas (petitioner in CRM-M-49254-2025) and Sagar (petitioner in CRM-M-50507-2025), have already been granted the concession of regular bail by this Court, vide orders dated 09.09.2025 and 15.09.2025, respectively (Annexures P-2 and P-3).

4. It is argued that mandatory provisions have not been complied with, and there is no independent corroboration of the recovery. The recovered quantity exceeds the maximum non-commercial limit by only 14 grams (i.e., 1.14 kg against 1 kg threshold). The actual quantity can only be definitively determined at the time of final decision after examining whether the weighing process during the investigation complied with prescribed norms, or not. If the procedure was not followed correctly, it would be difficult for the prosecution to prove that the recovered contraband falls strictly within the commercial quantity, and petitioner may be entitled to benefit even if found guilty. Since no conclusive view can be taken at this stage regarding whether the recovered charas constitutes non-commercial or commercial quantity, it would be inappropriate to detain the petitioner any longer, especially when he has already suffered incarceration for over seven months, since the date of his arrest on 17.02.2025. Therefore, counsel prays for grant of regular bail to the petitioner in the present case.

5. On advance notice and in response to the arguments addressed by learned counsel for the petitioner, learned State counsel, produces the custody certificate dated 06.10.2025 in Court today, which is taken on record. Office to tag the same at appropriate place. A copy thereof has been handed over to the counsel for the petitioner. As per the custody certificate, in the present case, petitioner has already undergone 07 months and 17 days period inside jail.

6. Learned State counsel argues that although, the quantity recovered exceeds the maximum limit for non-commercial quantity by 14 grams, yet, it must be treated as commercial quantity. Therefore, petitioner is not entitled to bail at this stage, especially considering that he is inside jail for a period of only seven months.

7. On being asked by the Court, learned State counsel informs that investigation in the case has already been completed. However, it is is also submitted that out of total of 28 prosecution witnesses, none has been examined, till date.

Learned State counsel further admits that, although another criminal case is registered against the petitioner under IPC, as reflected in the custody certificate, but petitioner, who is a young person aged 23 years, is not found to have been involved in any other similar offences punishable under the NDPS Ac