240 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-6667-2026 Date of decision : 10.02.2026 Dinesh @ Hanuman .....Petitioner versus State of Haryana ..... Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BHARDWAJ Present :- Mr. H.S. Kasan, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Tanuj Sharma, AAG, Haryana. RAJESH BHARDWAJ , J. (Oral)

1. Petitioner has approached this Court by way of filing the present petition praying for grant of regular bail to him in case FIR No.166 dated 04.05.2024, under Section 18(B) of the NDPS Act, 1985, registered at Police Station Pundri, District Kaithal, Haryana.

2. Succinctly facts of the case are that the police while on patrolling on 04.05.2024, received a secret information to the effect that a grey colour car bearing registration No.HR26BB-7010 is parked under the bridge of NH-152 D. A young man was sitting in the same and he has opium. He would come from there towards Ambala. If the raid is conducted, he could be arrested along with the contraband. On receiving the secret information, the police reached at the disclosed place and the Car was found parked. A person was found sitting in the same. He was apprehended. On asking, he disclosed his name as Dinesh @ Hanuman (petitioner). He was suspected to be carrying some contraband and thus, search of the Car was conducted and 2 kg 700 grams of opium was recovered from the dikki of the Car. He failed to produce any license regarding the possession of the same and thus, the FIR was registered and he was arrested on the spot. Investigation commenced and samples taken were sent to the FSL. On completion of the investigation, challan was presented. On framing of charges, the trial commenced. Petitioner approached the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge-cum-Judge, Special Court, Kaithal, praying for grant of regular bail. However, after hearing counsel for the parties, learned Additional Sessions Judge-cum- Judge, Special Court, Kaithal declined the same vide order dated 21.01.2025. Being aggrieved, petitioner earlier approached this Court by way of filing CRM-M-31691-2025, however, the same was dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 04.09.2025. Hence, petitioner has approached this Court again by way of filing the present second petition.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently contended that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case. He submits that the case of the prosecution is based on secret information but there is violation of Section 42 of the NDPS Act. He submits that there is also violation of Section 50 of the NDPS Act. He has submitted that the alleged recovery is from the public place however, no independent witness has been joined. He thus, submits that petitioner is involved in other cases however, he has never been involved in any other case under the NDPS Act. He submits that petitioner is behind bars from last 01 year and 09 months but till date, no prosecution witness has been examined. He has produced before this Court the zimni order of the trial Court which shows that the eye-witnesses do not come present for their examination thus, the right of the speedy trial of the petitioner is defeated. He thus, prays for grant of bail.

4. Learned State counsel has opposed the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner. He submits that the petitioner is specifically named in the secret information. He submits that petitioner is a habitual offender as he has been involved in multiple other cases. He has submitted that recovery effected from the petitioner is 2 kg 700 grams of opium which is a commercial quantity and thus, provisions of Section 37 of the NDPS Act are attracted in this case. He, on instructions, has submitted that out of 17 prosecution witnesses, no witness has been examined till date. Learned State counsel has placed on record the custody certificate.

5. As held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Mohd Muslim @ Hussain Vs. State (NCT of Delhi), 2023 LiveLaw(SC)260, this Court is