IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Decided on :06.04.2026 Ritu . . . Petitioner(s)

Versus State of Haryana . . . Respondent(s)

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY VASHISTH Present: Mr. Rakesh Kumar Lathwal, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Parveen Kumar, Addl. A.G., Haryana.

-.-

SANJAY VASHISTH , J. (Oral)

1. Present petition has been filed under Section 483 of BNSS (corresponding Section 439 Cr.P.C.) seeking regular bail in case FIR No.149 daed 29.07.2024, under Sections 20(b) (ii)(c) of NDPS Act [Section 29 of NDPS Act and 238 of BNS (corresponding to Section 201 of IPC) were added later on in the final investigation report], registered at Police Station Lakhan Majra, District Rohtak, Haryana.

2. As per the case of the prosecution, upon receiving secret information regarding a black-coloured Scorpio vehicle and a Swift car bearing registration No. HR-12-AK-4037, the police set up a barricade to check the vehicles. Shortly thereafter, both the aforesaid vehicles were seen approaching and were intercepted.

The occupant of the black-coloured Scorpio, bearing temporary registration No. T064 HR 1666 AS, disclosed his name as Ritu ( petitioner herein). However, driver of the Swift car fled from the spot, leaving behind the vehicle. It is further alleged that 47.200 kg of ganja was recovered from the rear portion of the black-coloured Scorpio.

Upon apprehension, driver of the Scorpio -petitioner further disclosed the name of the driver of the Swift car as Yogesh.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner- Ritu, was driving the Scorpio vehicle and was apprehended at the spot, from which a recovery of 47.200 kg of ganja was effected.

Counsel for the petitioner refers to the order dated

12.02.2026 (P-1) passed by this Court in CRM-M-37142-2025, wherein his name was also mentioned in the secret information; however, he very fairly does not press for parity with the said accused.

4. Learned counsel further submits that petitioner, aged 26 years, is in custody for a period of last 01 year and 08 months and has clean antecedents, as no other case is registered against him. Counsel further submits that out of a total of 35 prosecution witnesses, only 06 have been examined till date; thus, e trial is likely to take considerable time to conclude. Accordingly,prayer is made for the grant of regular bail. 5. Per contra, learned State counsel opposes the prayer for grant of regular bail and submits that petitioner was apprehended at the spot while driving the vehicle from which a commercial quantity of 47.200 kg of ganja was recovered, thereby attracting the rigours of Section 37 of the NDPS Act. Learned State counsel further contends that the allegations are grave in nature and, in view of the recovery effected from the conscious possession of the petitioner, no case for grant of bail is made out. Accordingly, prays for dismissal of present petition.

6. Considering the fact that petitioner is in custody for a period of last 01 year and 08 months, has clean antecedents, and that out of total of 35 prosecution witnesses, only 06 have been examined so far, thus indicating that the trial is likely to take considerable time to conclude, and further that the aspect of conscious possession is yet to be established during the course of trial, this Court is of the view that no useful purpose would be served by keeping the petitioner in further custody.

Accordingly, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the present petition is allowed Petitioner is ordered to be released on bail, subject to his furnishing bail/surety bonds to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court/ Chief Judicial Magistrate/Illaqa Magistrate/ Duty Magistrate concerned, if not required in any other case.

7. Any of the discussion done and recorded hereabove, shall not be construed as an expression of opinion on the facts of the case. Therefore, trial Court is expected to decide the case by taking an independent view, on the basis of evidence