IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

227 CRM-M-72893-2025 Date of decision: 09.01.2026 PARVEEN SINGH ....Petitioner Versus STATE OF HARYANA ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE YASHVIR SINGH RATHOR Present : Mr. Abhimanu Jagra, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Ramesh Kumar Ambavta, DAG, Haryana assisted by ASI Rai Kumar.

YASHVIR SINGH RATHOR. J.(Oral)

1. Present petition under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 has been filed for grant of regular bail to the petitioner in case FIR No. 630 dated 15.07.2024, under Section 20 and 29 of NDPS Act, registered at Police Station Palla, District Faridabad.

2. Brief facts of the prosecution case are that on 15.07.2024, ASI Chhanna Ram received secret information that Praveen Singh (petitioner) indulges in sale of charas. Upon receipt of the said information, the police set up an observation post and Praveen Singh (petitioner) was apprehended on the spot along with a polythene bag. On search, 1 kg 6 grams of charas was recovered from the said bag. In his disclosure statement, he stated that co-accused Bharat Singh had supplied him the charas. Petitioner Praveen Singh again made a supplementary disclosure statement alleging that co-accused Manoj had supplied him the contraband. He later on retracted from the supplementary disclosure statement and reiterated that the charas was supplied only by co-accused Bharat Singh. Thereafter, Bharat Singh was arrested and in his supplementary disclosure statement, he disclosed the name of Manohar Singh Farswan @ Monohar Singh @

Bittu as the supplier. After completion of investigation, challan was presented.

3. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned State counsel and have gone through the record.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioner has been falsely implicated. Learned counsel next contended that the petitioner is in custody since 15.07.2024. However, the case is still at the stage of prosecution evidence and trial has not been concluded and conclusion of the trial is likely to take a long time. Learned counsel further contended that co-accused Manohar Singh Farswan @ Manohar Singh @ Bittu and Bharat Singh have already been released on bail by this Court vide orders Annexure P-5 and Annexure P-6. Learned counsel further contended that in view of his long incarceration, petitioner is entitled to be released on bail, as prolonged incarceration, generally militates against the most precious fundamental right guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution and the conditional liberty must override the statutory embargo created under Section 37 of the NDPS Act. In support of his contention, learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon judgments passed in CRM-M-21794 of 2023 – Sandeep Singh v. State of Punjab decided on 05.05.2023, CRR-1785 of 2018 (O&M)- Vicky Kaur v. State of Punjab, decided on 13.08.2018, CRM-M- 14029 of 2018 Kamlesh v. State of Punjab, decided on 06.05.2015, CRM-M- 17321 of 2025 Jassu Ram @ Jasuram v. State of Punjab, decided on 04.04.2025 and a judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No. (s).12788/2023 – Nandalal Mondal @ Abhay Mondal v. The State of West Bengal, judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court passed in Criminal Appeal No.4883/2025 - Santosh Pawar Vs. State of Chhattisgarh & Anr. decided on

14.11.2025 and (2022) 10 SCC 52, Satender Kumar Antil Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation

5. On the other hand, learned State Counsel has opposed the bail and argued that the petitioner has committed a heinous crime as he was found in possession of 1 kg 6 grams of charas and in view of rigors contained in statutory provision of Section 37 of NDPS Act, he is not entitled to the benefit of bail.

6. Hon’ble Supreme Court in 2023 Live Law (SC) 533, Rabi Prakash v. State of Odisha has held that prolonged incarceration, generally militates against the most precious fundamental right guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constituti