THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of decision : 17.04.2026 SONU SAINI ... PETITIONER Versus STATE OF HARYANA .. RESPONDENT CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.S.GREWAL Present:- Mr. Manoj Kumar Taya, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Vijay Kumar, AAG, Haryana.

***

H.S. Grewal, J.(Oral)

1. This petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking regular bail under Section 483 BNSS, 2023(erstwhile Section 439 Cr.P.C.), in case FIR No.176 dated 09.03.2025, under Section 20 of the NDPS Act, registered at Police Station Sadar Karnal, District Karnal.

2. The case of the prosecution is that on 08.03.2025, the petitioner along with co-accused Bishan @ Vishal, was apprehended on the basis of a secret information. Upon search of the house of the petitioner, one big plastic bag containing ganja (phool patti) weighing 30 kg. 900 grams was recovered.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner, however, submits that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the case and there is non-compliance of the mandatory provisions of the NDPS Act. It is submitted that the alleged secret information was neither reduced into writing nor forwarded to the immediate superior officer, as required under the law. Learned counsel further submits that although the alleged recovery was shown to be effected from a public place but no independent witness was joined during investigation.

4. It is further submitted that while the prosecution alleges the recovery of 30 kg 900 grams of ganja (phool patti), however, the FSL report fails to corroborate the same. As per the FSL report (Annexure P-6), the recovered material is not purely ganja but a mixture of bhang and ganja. In support of his submission, learned counsel has relied upon the judgment of this Court in the cases of Roshan Kumar and another versus State of Haryana, 2019(3) RCR (Criminal) 692 and Arun Kumar Azad and others versus State of Haryana and others, 2021(3) RCR (Criminal) 398.

5. Learned counsel also submits that the petitioner is in custody for the last more than 01 year and 29 days. Although the petitioner is involved in one case under the NDPS Act but he is on bail in that case. He, therefore, prays for release of the petitioner on regular bail as the trial is likely to take a long time as only 02 out of 17 cited prosecution witnesses have been examined so far.

6. Learned State counsel vehemently opposes the prayer for grant of regular bail to the petitioner. He has filed the custody certificate in Court, which is taken on record. As per the custody certificate, the petitioner is in custody for the last more than 01 year and 29 days. He, upon instructions, submits that only 02 out of 17 cited prosecution witnesses have been examined so far.

7. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

8. The primary issue in the present case pertains to the nature and composition of the alleged recovered contraband. The prosecution has projected the recovery as ganja, however, a perusal of the FSL report (Annexure P-2) clearly shows that the recovered material consists of “Greenish brown vegetative material having flowering/fruiting tops, leaves and seeds etc.”

9. Moreover, in terms of Section 2(iii)(b) of the NDPS Act, ganja specifically excludes seeds and leaves when not accompanied by the tops. Therefore, the inclusion of leaves and seeds in the recovered material makes it evident that the substance cannot be treated as pure ganja in its strict legal sense. Section 2(iii)(b) of the NDPS Act is reproduced hereunder:-

“(iii) ‘cannabis (hemp)’ means—

(a) charas, that is, the separated resin, in whatever form, whether crude or purified, obtained from the cannabis plant and also includes concentrated preparation and resin known as hashish oil or liquid hashish;

(b) ganja, that is, the flowering or fruiting tops of the cannabis plant (excluding the seeds and leaves when not accompanied by the tops), by whatever name they may be known or designated; and (c) any mixture, with or without an