124 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of decision : 09.03.2026 Pujari .....Petitioner versus State of Haryana ..... Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BHARDWAJ Present :- Mr. Anil Kumar Malik, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Tanuj Sharma, AAG, Haryana. RAJESH BHARDWAJ , J. (Oral)

CRM-M-54515-2025

1. Present petition has been filed praying for the grant of regular bail to the petitioner in case bearing FIR No.679 dated 29.08.2024, under Sections 20C, 29 and 27-A of the NDPS Act, registered at Police Station Shahabad, District Kurukshetra.

2. Succinctly facts of the case are that the police party while on patrolling on 29.08.2024, received a secret information to the effect that Pujari (petitioner) was involved in selling ganja. It was informed that he was standing on the Barara road near the gate of Shahabad Grain Market and if the raid is conducted, he could be arrested along with the contraband. On receiving the secret information, the police reached at the disclosed place and a person resembling in the secret information was found there. On asking, he disclosed his name as Pujari. He was suspected to be carrying some contraband and thus, the bag he was carrying was searched. On conducting the search of the bag, 32.830 kgs of ganja was recovered. He failed to produce any license regarding the possession of the same. Thus, FIR was registered and petitioner was arrested on the spot. The samples taken were sent to the FSL. On receiving the report of FSL, challan was presented and on framing of the charges, trial commenced. Petitioner approached the Court of learned Judge, Special Court, Kurukshetra, praying for grant of bail, however, after hearing counsel for the parties and finding no merits, the same was declined vide order dated 14.02.2025. Aggrieved by the same, petitioner is before this Court by way of filing the present petition.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case. He submits that admittedly the case is based on secret information and there is violation of Section 42 of the NDPS Act. He submits that the alleged recovery has been effected from the public place, however, no independent witness has been joined. He further submits that the conscious possession is also not proved and there is blatant violation of provisions of Section 50 of the NDPS Act. To buttress his arguments, learned counsel submits that though the petitioner was involved in one more case, however, he is on bail in that case. He submits that petitioner is behind bars from the last more than 1 ½ years however, there is no material progress in the trial. He submits that in the facts and circumstances of the case, the petitioner deserves to be granted regular bail.

4. Learned State counsel has vehemently opposed the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner. He submits that the petitioner is specifically named in the FIR. He submits that the petitioner was arrested on the spot and recovery of 32.830 kgs of ganja has been recovered from him which is a commercial quantity, thus, the provisions of Section 37 of the NDPS Act are attracted in this case. On instructions, he submits that out of 19 prosecution witnesses, only 01 witness has been examined till date. He has placed on record the custody certificate of the petitioner and submits that petitioner is involved in one more case and is not on bail in the same.

5. After hearing counsel for the parties and perusing the record, it is deciphered that the alleged recovery in the present case is on the basis of secret information. The alleged recovery of 32.830 kgs of ganja has been effected from the bag carried out by the petitioner. As per the statute, the alleged recovery is commercial in nature. Custody certificate filed by the State shows that the petitioner has undergone incarceration of 01 year, 05 months and 29 days as on 07.03.2026. It further reflects that the petitioner is inv