##PAGE1##

CRM-M-4162-2026 (O&M) 1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA CHANDIGARH

266 CRM-M-4162-2026 (O&M) Date of decision: 06.04.2026

Subhash Chander ....Petitioner Versus

State of Haryana ...Respondent

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMAN CHAUDHARY *****

Present : Mr. BS Beniwal, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Amrik Narwal, DAG, Haryana.

*****

AMAN CHAUDHARY, J. (ORAL)

1. Prayer in the present petition filed under Section 483 BNSS is for grant of regular bail to the petitioner in case FIR No.62 dated 16.03.2024, registered under Sections 18(b) and 15 of the NDPS Act, at Police Station

Bhuna, District Fatehabad.

2. Learned counsel contends that the petitioner, aged 64 years, has been in custody for 1 year, 10 months, 21 days. The alleged recovery from the petitioner is of 3.5 kgs. opium and 1 kg. poppy husk including the weight of the bag, which was not separated. He was granted interim bail which he did not misuse. No independent witness has been joined at the time of recovery. Charges have been framed on 02.12.2024, however, only 4, out of 19 PWs, have been examined. He is involved in one more case of the year 2019, wherein he is on bail. Reliance is placed on the judgment passed by Hon'ble The Supreme Court titled as Maulana Mohd. Amir Rashadi vs. State of U.P. and others,

2012(2) SCC 382.

3. The custody certificate dated 23.03.2026 filed by the learned State counsel is taken on record. As per the same, the petitioner is behind bars for 1

year, 10 months and 21 days.

4. Learned State counsel opposes the bail on the ground that commercial quantity of contraband has been recovered from the petitioner, who was apprehended at the spot. However, he is unable to controvert the

ASHOK KUMAR

2026.04.06 18:21 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

CRM-M-4162-2026 (O&M) 2

submissions with regard to stage, the petitioner being on bail in another case and never misuse the concession of interim bail.

5. Heard.

6. Hon'ble The Supreme Court in Shariful Islam @ Sarif versus The State of West Bengal SLP (Crl.) No.4173/2022, decided on 04.08.2022, granted bail to the petitioner in a case of recovery of commercial quantity of contraband, considering incarceration for over 1 year and 6 months and there being no likelihood of completion of trial in the near future, while the Division Bench of this Court in Bhupender Singh vs. Narcotic Control Bureau (2022) 2 RCR (Crl.) 706, observed with regard to achieving balance between right to speedy trial guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India and rigors

of Section 37 of NDPS Act.

7. This Court in the case of Balraj Singh vs. State of Punjab CRM-M- 57386-2022, on 14.12.2022 has followed the dictum laid down by Hon'ble The Supreme Court and granted the bail to the petitioner therein after he had undergone total custody of 1 year and 6 months and in Munasi Masih vs. State of Punjab, CRM-M-31504-2022, on 06.2.2023, wherein commercial quantity of contraband had been recovered but only 2 out of 13 PWs had been examined,

allowed bail.

8. In Sarabjeet Singh @ Sarbi vs. State of Punjab, CRM-M718- 2023, decided on 24.03.2023, Gursant Singh @ Santu vs. State of Punjab, CRM-M-37944-2020, decided on 07.09.2021, the recovery, as in the present case, was effected from a transparent polythene bag wherein the accused was granted bail. This Court granted bail in Tajinder Singh vs. State of Punjab, CRM-M-8212-2022, alleged recovery was of 270 grams of heroin and the accused was behind bars since 7 months and Ladwinder Singh @ Laddi vs. State of Punjab, CRM-M-44383-2022, wherein the recovery was of 2kgs. 700

grams opium and the accused remain in custody for 9 months.

9. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, in particular that the petitioner is in custody for the last 1 year, 10 months and 21 days; on bail in another case; did not misuse the concession of interim bail; charges stands framed on 02.12.2024, however, out of 19, only 4 PWs, have been examined, the trial is likely to take a consid