SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(Online)(P&H) 22566

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
KAMAL SINGH – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF HARYANA – Respondent



276 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M No.67840 of 2025 Date of Decision: 08.12.2025 Kamal Singh ….. Petitioner Versus State of Haryana ….. Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BHARDWAJ Present: Mr. Pratham Sethi, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Tanuj Sharma, AAG, Haryana.

*****

RAJESH BHARDWAJ, J. (ORAL)

1. Present petition has been filed praying for the grant of regular bail to the petitioner in case bearing FIR No.241, dated 07.09.2023, under Section 15(c) of NDPS Act, 1985, registered at Police Station Narwana Sadar, District Jind.

2. Succinctly, the facts of the case are that the police party, while on patrolling on 07.09.2023, received a secret information to the effect that Sandeep @ Koka is involved in selling of poppy husk and sitting in front of the tubewell room in the fields of Raja son of Bhartu and in case of raid, he could be apprehended along with the contraband. On receiving the secret information, the raiding party was constituted and reached the place as disclosed in the secret information. A young person along with 03 plastic bags was seen sitting outside the tubewell room in the field. On seeing the police, he got perplexed and tried to escape, however with the help of police officials, he was apprehended. On asking, he disclosed his name to be Sandeep @ Koka. He was suspected to be carrying some contraband in 03 plastic bags being carried by him and thus, the search was conducted. On conducting the search of all 03 bags, in all 52 Kgs 700 grams of Doda Post (Poppy Husk) was recovered. The petitioner failed to produce any licence regarding the conscious possession of the same, thus, the FIR was registered and he was arrested on the spot. On registration of the FIR, the investigation commenced. The samples taken were sent to the FSL. During the investigation, complicity of the petitioner, namely, Kamal Singh, surfaced and thus, he was arrayed as an accused in the present case. Resultantly, the petitioner was arrested on 03.10.2025. The petitioner approached the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jind praying for the grant of regular bail. However, after hearing both the sides and finding no merit in the same, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jind, declined the bail application filed by the petitioner vide order dated 15.10.2025. Hence being aggrieved, the petitioner is before this Court by way of filing the present petition praying for the grant of regular bail.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently contended that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case on the basis of disclosure statement of co-accused, which is not even an admissible evidence. He has submitted that co-accused, namely, Sandeep @ Koka, from whom the recovery of 52 Kgs 700 grams of Doda Post has been effected, has already been granted bail by this Court vide order dated 08.01.2025, passed in CRM-M-55693-2023. He has submitted that the recovered contraband from co-accused was 52 Kgs 700 grams of Doda Post, which is marginally above the commercial quantity. He has submitted that the petitioner has no criminal antecedents as he has never been involved in any other case. He has submitted that the petitioner is behind bars since 03.10.2025. He, at the outset, prays for the grant of regular bail to the petitioner on the basis of parity with that of the co- accused, namely, Kamal Singh. He has drawn the attention of this Court to the order dated 26.11.2025 passed in CRM-M-47958-2025, whereby, co-accused, namely, Kamal Singh has been granted regular bail by this Court. He has submitted that on the basis of parity, the petitioner deserves to be granted bail as the case of the petitioner is similar to that of the said co-accused, who has already been granted bail.

4. Per contra, learned State counsel has vehemently opposed the submissions made by counsel for the petitioner. He has submitted that the recovery effected in the present case from the co-accused is commercial

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top