(240) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of decision : 22.12.2025 SURAJ ... Petitioner Versus STATE OF HARYANA ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANISHA BATRA (ORAL)

Present: Mr. L.K. Gollen, Advocate, Mr. Bharti Gollen, Advocate for the petitioner Mr. Neeraj Poswal, AAG, Haryana ****

MANISHA BATRA, J. (ORAL)

1. The instant petition has been filed by the petitioner under Section 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short “BNSS”) seeking grant of regular bail in case arising out of FIR No.525 dated 06.09.2025 registered under Sections 21C and 27A of Narcotics Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act (for short “NDPS”) registered at Police Station Sadar Thanesar, District Kurukshetra.

2. The aforementioned FIR was registered on the allegations that on 06.09.2025, the accused-Lovelesh @ Monty and Sikandar Singh were apprehended on the basis of a secret information and recovery of 287 Grams of heroin was recovered from them. On interrogation, they suffered disclosure statement to the effect that out of 287 Grams heroin, 50 Gram heroin was purchased to be supplied to the present petitioner and he had given a sum of Rs.50,000/- for that purpose. The petitioner was nominated as such. He was arrested on 09.09.2025. Investigation now stands completed and challan has been presented.

3. It is argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that he has been falsely implicated in this case on the basis of disclosure statement of the co-accused which cannot be admissible in evidence. No recovery has been effected at his instance. The rigors of Section 37 of the NDPS are not attracted qua him. He is in custody since long. He has clean antecedents. His further incarceration would not serve any useful purpose. It is thus, urged that he deserves to be released on bail.

4. Status report and custody certificate have been filed. It is argued by learned State counsel that the call detail record of the mobile phone of the petitioner and the co-accused has been collected and that shows that they had been talking to each other. It is further argued by Learned State counsel that keeping in view the gravity of the allegations as levelled against the petitioner, he does not deserve to be extended benefit of bail.

5. This Court has heard the rival submissions made by the counsel for both the parties at considerable length.

6. The petitioner is alleged to have given a sum of Rs.50,000/- to the co-accused Lovelesh for the purpose of supplying 50 grams of heroin to him. No recovery has been effected from him. He is in custody since 10.09.2025. He has been nominated on the basis of disclosure statement of the co-accused. The well settled proposition of law is that the Court while considering an application for grant of bail has to keep certain factors in mind, such as, whether there is a prima facie case or reasonable ground to believe that the accused has committed the offence; circumstances which are peculiar to the accused; likelihood of the offence being repeated; the nature and gravity of the accusation; severity of the punishment in the event of conviction; the danger of accused absconding or fleeing, if released on bail and reasonable apprehension of the witnesses being threatened. The period of incarceration is also relevant fact that is to be considered. It is also unequivocally established that, to be granted bail, the accused charged with offence under the provisions of NDPS Act must fulfill the conditions stipulated in Section 37 of the Act. A contention has been raised that the rigors of Section 37 of the NDPS Act are attracted in the present case as there is recovery of commercial quantity of contraband.

6. The case of the prosecution is that the name of the petitioner was disclosed by the accused-Lovelesh @ Monty, from whom recovery of commercial quantity of heroin has been effected. As per his disclosure statement, out 287 grams of heroin, 50 gram heroin had to be supplied to the petitioner and he had paid Rs