##PAGE1##

CRM-M No.2649 of 2026 -1-

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH

214

*****

CRM-M No.2649 of 2026

Date of decision : 19.5.2026

Date of uploading : 19.5.2026

Mukesh Kumar Sharma @ Mukesh Kumar ………….Petitioner

Versus

State of Haryana …….Respondent

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL

Present: Mr. Suvir Sidhu, Advocate and

Ms. Punyaveet, Advocate, for the petitioner

Ms. Priyanka Sadar, Senior DAG, Haryana

---

SUMEET GOEL, J. (ORAL)

1. 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.441 dated 2.9.2025, registered for the offences

punishable under Sections 20(c), 61, 85 of the Narcotic Drugs and

Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short ‘NDPS Act’) at Police

Station KUK, Kurukshetra.

2. The gravamen of the allegations against the petitioner is that he

is an accused of being involved in an FIR pertaining to NDPS Act

involving 21 Kg.400 grams of ganja allegedly recovered from the

petitioner and his co-accused on 2.9.2025 by the police party in the area

of bus stand Narkatari.

ASHWANI KUMAR

2026.05.19 17:42

I attest to the accuracy and

integrity of this document

CRM-M No.2649 of 2026 -2-

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is

in custody since 2.9.2025. 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 has iterated that the contraband alleged to have

been recovered from the petitioner 21 Kg.400 grams of ganja, which is

marginally above the threshold limit of non-commercial quantity specified

in the notification issued under the NDPS Act. 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 8

months. Thus, regular bail is prayed for.

4. Learned State counsel has opposed the present petition by

arguing that the allegations raised against the petitioner are serious in

nature and, thus, he does not deserve the concession of the regular bail.

Learned State counsel has further submitted that the instant bail plea is

restricted by the rigors of Section 37 of the NDPS Act, and thus, the same

ought to be dismissed. Learned State counsel seeks to place on record

custody certificate dated 18.5.2026 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. The petitioner was arrested on 2.9.2025 whereinafter,

investigation was carried out and the challan was presented on 13.1.2026

and charges were framed on 31.1.2026. Total 17 prosecution witnesses

ASHWANI KUMAR

2026.05.19 17:42

I attest to the accuracy and

integrity of this document

CRM-M No.2649 of 2026 -3-

have been cited, but none has been examined till date. It is not in dispute

that the contraband allegedly recovered from the petitioner and his co-

accused is 21 Kg. 400 grams of ganja, which is marginally above the

threshold limit of non-commercial quantity. Reliance in this regard can be

placed upon the orders passed by this Court in Rajdev Giri versus State of

Punjab, CRM-M-44898-2019, decided on 18.09.2020; Rahish versus

State of Haryana, CRM-M-36498-2020, decided on 11.11.2020;

Karambir versus State of Haryana, CRM-M-31820-2019, decided on

28.08.2019: Jagjit Singh @ Jagga Gill versus State of Punjab, CRM-M-

41242-2019, decided on 27.02.2020 and Baljit Kaur @ Baljito versus

State of Punjab, CRM-M-12849-2020, decided on 04.06.2020, wherein

accused were enlarged on bail in cases where the alleged recovery was

slightly more than the quantity prescribed for non-commercial category

under the NDPS Act. The rival contentions raised at Bar give rise to

debatable issues shall be ratiocinated upon during the course of trial. This

Court does not deem it appropria