IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Dixit Kumar ….Petitioner versus State of Haryana ….Respondent Date of decision: February 12, 2026 Date of Uploading: February 12, 2026 CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL Present:- Dr. Pankaj Nanhera, Senior Advocate with Mr. Rishav Kamboj, Advocate and Mr. Aman Mehta, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Gurmeet Singh, AAG Haryana.

*****

SUMEET GOEL, J. (ORAL)

Present petition has been filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short ‘BNSS’) for grant of regular bail to the petitioner, in case bearing FIR No.292 dated 30.08.2025, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 22(c) and 27A of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short ‘NDPS Act’), at Police Station City Tohana, District Fatehabad, Haryana.

2. The gravamen of the FIR in question is that during the intervening night of 29/30.08.2025, a police party headed by ASI Surender Singh, acting on secret information, apprehended co-accused, namely, Kapil, son of Hem Raj. A recovery of 50 strips of NRX Etizolam tablets (each strip containing 10 tablets, totaling 500 tablets), weighing 97 grams and 04 milligrams along with the strips, was effected from his possession in the presence of DSP Umed Singh. Consequently, the present case was registered. During the course of investigation, co-accused, namely, Kapil was arrested and made a disclosure statement admitting his involvement in the offence. He further disclosed that he had purchased a total of 60 strips of NRX Etizolam tablets from Dixit Kumar (petitioner herein).

3. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner has iterated that the petitioner is in custody since 30.08.2025. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner iterated that the petitioner has nothing to do with the offence in question and he was implicated, in this case, solely on the basis of disclosure statement of co-accused, namely, Kapil, from whose possession, the alleged contraband has been recovered. Learned senior counsel has argued that the said disclosure statement cannot be the basis for implication of the petitioner as the same is inadmissible in law. Learned senior counsel has further argued that nothing has been recovered from the petitioner or his premises. Learned senior counsel has further argued that, in fact, the petitioner is the owner of a licenced medical store, namely, “Bhutani Medicose” situated at Ratia Road, Tohana, and is duly authorized to purchase and sell the drugs, as per law, and thus, provisions of Section 37 of the NDPS Act do not apply. Learned senior counsel has further argued that there is no material available with the prosecution to connect the petitioner with the offence in question, and provisions of Section 27-A of the NDPS Act have wrongly been incorporated in the present case, since the petitioner is not involved in any financing of illicit drug traffic and the harboring of offenders.

3.1. Learned senior counsel has further submitted that mandatory provisions of the NDPS Act have not scrupulously been complied with, and thus, the prosecution case suffers from inherent defects. Learned senior counsel has iterated that the trial is delayed and the liability thereof cannot be fastened upon the petitioner. Learned senior counsel has further iterated that the petitioner has suffered incarceration for more than 05 months. Thus, regular bail is prayed for.

4. Learned State counsel has filed reply by way of an affidavit dated 02.02.2026, in this Court today, which is taken on record. Raising submissions in tandem with the said reply, learned State counsel has opposed the present petition by arguing that the allegations raised against the petitioner are serious in nature and, thus, the petitioner does not deserve the concession of the regular bail. Relevant part of the aforesaid reply reads thus: “14. THAT THE ROLE PERFORMED BY THE PETITIONER-

ACCUSED DIXIT IS AS UNDER:

That the present petitioner-accused Dixit Kumar is the