121+238 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision: 01.04.2026 Date of Uploading: 01.04.2026 Rakesh Kumar …..Petitioner.

Versus State of Haryana .....Respondent.

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL *****

Present:- Mr. Jagjit Singh Gill, Advocate and Mr. Lakhan Paul Garg, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Gurmeet Singh, AAG, Haryana.

SUMEET GOEL, J.(Oral)

Present fourth petition has been filed under Section 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (439 Cr.P.C.), for grant of regular bail to the petitioner in case bearing FIR No.0053 dated 29.01.2022, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 20(C)/ 27A/29/61/85 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short ‘NDPS Act’), at Police Station City Sirsa, District Sirsa.

2. The gravamen of the FIR in question is that the petitioner is an accused of being involved in an FIR pertaining to NDPS Act involving 40 kilograms Ganja allegedly found in the possession of the petitioner and his co-accused, namely, Vinod Kumar.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is in custody since 29.01.2022. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that the mandatory provisions of the NDPS Act have not been complied with, and thus, the prosecution case suffers from inherent defects. Learned counsel for the petitioner has iterated that the trial is delayed and the liability thereof cannot be fastened upon the petitioner. Learned counsel has further iterated that the petitioner has suffered incarceration for more than 04 years and 02 months. Thus, regular bail is prayed for.

4. Learned State counsel has opposed the present petition by arguing that the allegations raised are serious in nature and thus the petitioner does not deserve the concession of the regular bail. Learned State counsel seeks to place on record custody certificate dated 12.03.2026 in Court, which is taken on record.

5. I have heard counsel for the rival parties and have gone through the available records of the case.

6. The petitioner was arrested on 29.01.2022 whereinafter, investigation was carried out and the Challan qua him was presented on 21.07.2022. Total 28 prosecution witnesses have been cited out of which 04 witnesses have been examined till date. The rival contentions raised at Bar give rise to debatable issues shall be ratiocinated upon during the course of trial. This Court does not deem it appropriate to delve deep into these rival contentions, at this stage, lest it may prejudice the trial. Nothing tangible has been brought forward to indicate the likelihood of the petitioner absconding from the process of justice or interfering with the prosecution evidence.

6.1. As per custody certificate dated 12.03.2026 filed by the learned State counsel, the petitioner is stated not to have undergone any period of incarceration qua the FIR in question. However, the fact remains that the petitioner is in custody as regards the FIR in question since 29.01.2022 & it appears that the custody period of the petitioner qua the FIR in question is being counted as NIL by the State on account of his undergoing sentence/incarceration in another FIR. Further, as per the said custody certificate the petitioner is stated to be involved in other cases/FIRs. However, this factum cannot be a ground sufficient by itself, to decline the concession of regular bail to the petitioner in the FIR in question when a case is made out for grant of regular bail qua the FIR in question by ratiocinating upon the facts/circumstances of the said FIR. Reliance in this regard can be placed upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Maulana Mohd. Amir Rashadi v. State of U.P. and another, 2012 (1) RCR (Criminal) 586; a Division Bench judgment of the Hon’ble Calcutta High Court in case of Sridhar Das v. State, 1998 (2) RCR (Criminal) 477 & judgments of this Court in CRM-M No.38822- 2022 titled as Akhilesh Singh v. State of Haryana, decided on 29.11.2021, and Balraj