IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of decision: 30.03.2026 Angrej ...Petitioner VERSUS State of Haryana ...Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD S. BHARDWAJ Present :- Mr. B.S. Beniwal, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Onkar Singh Wahla, Sr. DAG, Haryana.

*****

VINOD S. BHARDWAJ, J. (Oral)

The instant first petition has been filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for grant of regular bail to the petitioner in case bearing FIR No.0746 dated 04.10.2025 registered under Section 21(b) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 at Police Station Sadar Hisar, District Hisar.

2. The FIR in the present case has been registered on the statement of police officials who were on patrolling duty near Village Pauranwali Bus Stand for prevention of sale of narcotics. While on patrolling duty, they received secret information to the effect that the petitioner herein was involved in the sale of drugs. On receipt of the said information, the petitioner was apprehended and 10.86 grams of heroin was recovered from his possession.

3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner contends that the petitioner is in custody since 04.10.2025 and has already undergone an actual sentence of almost 06 months. It is further contended that investigation in the present case is complete and that there are 17 witnesses cited by the prosecution who are yet to be examined. The trial has not yet commenced and even the charges have not been framed. The conclusion of trial shall thus take a long time.

4. Learned State Counsel on the other hand contends that the petitioner is involved in four other cases under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985. The rest of the aforesaid submissions are however not disputed.

5. In response thereto, counsel for the petitioner contends that in 03 out of the aforesaid 04 cases, the petitioner has been nominated with the aid of Section 29 of the NDPS Act and that there is no actual recovery effected from the petitioner. He further contends that insofar as the other FIR i.e. FIR No.445 of 2025 is concerned, the recovery was of intermediate quantity and he has already been granted bail in the said FIR.

6. Learned State Counsel does not dispute the same.

7. I have heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respective parties and have gone through the documents appended along with the present petition.

8. Taking into consideration the nature of allegations against the petitioner, the period of custody already undergone by him, the quantity of contraband recovered as well as the stage of trial, I deem it appropriate to allow the present petition.

9. The instant petition is allowed and the petitioner is ordered to be released on regular bail on his furnishing requisite bail bond/surety bond to the satisfaction of the trial Court/Duty Magistrate, concerned.

10. It is made clear that the petitioner shall not extend any threat and shall not influence any prosecution witnesses in any manner directly or indirectly.

11. The observation made hereinabove shall not be construed as an expression on the merits of the case and the Trial Court shall decide the case on the basis of available material.

12. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.

30.03.2026 (VINOD S. BHARDWAJ)

Sumit Gusain JUDGE