##PAGE1##

212 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT

CHANDIGARH

CRM-M No.8365 of 2026 Date of Decision: 02.04.2026

Date of Uploading: 02.04.2026

Javed Khan …..Petitioner.

Versus State of Haryana

.....Respondent.

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL

*****

Present:- Mr. Saleem Ahmed, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Gurmeet Singh, AAG, Haryana.

SUMEET GOEL, J.(Oral)

Present petition has been filed under Section 483 of Bharatiya

Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023), for grant of regular bail to the petitioner in case bearing FIR No.10 dated 15.01.2025, registered for the offences punishable under Section 21-C of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short ‘NDPS Act’), at Police Station City Nuh,

District Mewat.

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

alleged recovery of 278 grams of heroin.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that initially, the petitioner was arrested on 15.01.2025 but he was released on interim bail on 01.04.2025 but later-on, he surrendered before the concerned Court on

YAG DUTT

2026.04.02 17:00 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document

CRM-M No.8365 of 2026 -2-

02.07.2025. 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 11 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 01.04.2026 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. It is not in dispute before this Court that the petitioner was released on interim bail on 01.04.2025 and the said order came to be continued from time to time and the petitioner, on his own volition, surrendered before the concerned Court on 02.07.2025. It is further not in dispute before this Court that the petitioner has not misused the said concession of regular interim bail in any manner whatsoever. On culmination of investigation, Challan was presented on 11.07.2025 and charges against the petitioner were framed on 30.07.2025. Total 17 prosecution witnesses have been cited out of whom 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

YAG DUTT

2026.04.02 17:00 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document

CRM-M No.8365 of 2026 -3-

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 01.04.2026 filed by the learned State counsel, the petitioner has already suffered incarceration for a period of 11 months and 16 days & the petitioner is stated to be not

involved in any other case.

6.2. This Court in a judgment titled as Kulwinder Versus State of Punjab passed in CRM-M-64074-2024 (2025:PHHC:002695); after relying upon the ratio decidendi of the judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Hussainara Khatoon vs. Home Secy., State of Bihar (1980) 1 SCC 81; Abdul Rehman Antulay vs R.S. Nayak (1992) 1 SCC 225; Javed Gulam Nabi Shaikh vs. State of Maharashtra and another, 2024(3) RCR (Criminal) 494; Mohd Muslim @ Hussain vs.