CRM-M/47037/2026 of SUNIL KUMAR ALIAS BACHI Vs STATE OF HARYANA on 27 August 2026

1. This petition has been filed under section 483 B.N.S.S. (earlier 439 Cr.P.C.) for grant of regular bail in case FIR No. 198 dated 16.08.2025 under Section 17-C/27-A/29/61/85 of NDPS Act registered at Police Station Ding, District Sirsa, Haryana.

2. The case of the prosecution case is that on 16.08.2025, co-accused Sumit Kumar and Rajesh Kumar were apprehended and found in conscious possession of 2.696 kg of opium without any valid permit or licence. Consequently, the present FIR was registered under Section 17-C of the NDPS Act. During investigation, the co-accused allegedly disclosed the name of the present petitioner as the supplier of the recovered contraband.

3. Ld. counsel for the petitioner contends that he has been falsely implicated, as he was neither named in the FIR nor any contraband was recovered from his possession. It is further submitted that the petitioner has RENU RAWAT

Chandigarh been implicated solely on the basis of the disclosure statements of co-accused Rajesh Kumar and Sumit Kumar, while the alleged recovery of 2.696 kg of opium was effected only from the co-accused. It is further argued that there is no independent evidence connecting the petitioner with the possession, sale, or transportation of the contraband, and disclosure statements recorded in police custody are inadmissible unless corroborated by independent material. He further submits that nothing remains to be recovered from him and that the mandatory provisions of the NDPS Act were not complied with during the investigation.

4. Notice of motion.

5. Mr. Neeraj Sheoran, Sr. DAG,Haryana accepts notice on behalf of the respondent–State and has vehemently opposed the prayer for grant of regular bail on the ground that the allegations against the petitioner are serious in nature. He has filed the custody certificate of the petitioner in Court today, which is taken on record. As per the custody certificate, the petitioner is in custody for the last 11 months and 26 days.

6. I have heard the submissions made by the parties and gone through the record.

7. After hearing the rival contentions and considering that the petitioner is in custody for the last 11 months and 26 days and apart from the disclosure statement of the co-accused there is no other material connecting him with the alleged offence, coupled with the fact that the trial is likely to take considerable time, this Court is of the view that no useful purpose would be RENU RAWAT

Chandigarh served by his further incarceration. Accordingly, the petitioner is granted the concession of regular bail during the pendency of the trial.

8. Therefore, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the instant petition is allowed. The petitioner is ordered to be released on regular bail on his furnishing requisite bail/surety bonds to the satisfaction of the trial Court/Duty Magistrate concerned.

9. Nothing discussed hereinabove shall be construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case.

10. It is clarified that if while on bail so granted through the instant order, the petitioner is found indulged in any other criminal case/activity, it shall be open to the State to seek cancellation of his bail. 27.08.2026

(H.S.GREWAL) renu

JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No Whether reportable: Yes/No RENU RAWAT

Chandigarh