227 THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M No.41029 of 2025 Date of Decision: 09.12.2025 Sunil Sharma ..... Petitioner Versus State of Haryana ..... Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BHARDWAJ ***

Present: Mr. Brijender Kaushik, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Tanuj Sharma, AAG, Haryana.

***

RAJESH BHARDWAJ, J. (ORAL)

1. Present second petition has been filed praying for the grant of regular bail to the petitioner in case bearing FIR No.12, dated 12.01.2024, under Sections 15 & 29 of NDPS Act, registered at Police Station Naraingarh, District Ambala, Haryana.

2. Succinctly the facts of the case are that the police party, while on patrolling on 12.01.2024, received a secret information to the effect that Sanu son of Late Banarsi Das was involved in the smuggling of Poppy Husk and stored the huge quantity at his house. It was informed that 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, i.e. the house of Sanu. A person was found sitting on the cot in the room constructed for animals. On asking, he disclosed his name to be Sanu. On giving the offer, search of the house was conducted and on conducting the search of the house, 11 bags containing Doda Chura (Poppy Husk) were recovered. The total weight of Poppy Husk recovered from the house of the petitioner comes to 2.37 quintals. He 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. On completion of the investigation, the challan was presented and on framing of charges, the trial commenced. During the investigation, he made a disclosure statement about the petitioner, namely, Sunil Sharma that he was the supplier of the contraband and thus, he was also arrayed as an accused in the present case. Resultantly, the petitioner was arrested on 22.01.2024. The petitioner approached the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ambala praying for the grant of bail, however after hearing both the sides and finding no merit in the same, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ambala declined the bail application filed by the petitioner vide order dated 21.08.2024. Being aggrieved, the petitioner earlier approached this Court praying for the grant of bail by way of filing CRM-M-45635-2024, however the same was dismissed as not pressed vide order dated 20.03.2025. Hence being aggrieved, the petitioner is again before this Court by way of filing the present second petition praying for the grant of bail.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case. He has submitted that neither the petitioner has been named in the secret information nor any recovery has been effected from him, however he has been implicated in the present case only on the basis of disclosure statement of co-accused, which in itself is not even an admissible evidence. He has submitted that even otherwise, there is a violation of mandatory provisions of Sections 42 & 50 of NDPS Act. He has submitted that no independent witness has been joined. He has further submitted that the offence under Section 29 of NDPS Act would not be attracted. He has submitted that though the petitioner was prosecuted in one more case, however he is on bail in that case. He has submitted that the petitioner is behind bars from last more than 1½ years, however, there is no material progress in the trial and thus, his right of speedy trial is miserably defeated. He has submitted that in the facts and circumstances of the case, the petitioner deserves to be granted bail.

4. Learned counsel for the State has vehemently opposed the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner. He has submitted that complicity of the p