CRM-M/47182/2026 of NARAYAN ALIAS NARAYAN SHARMA 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 of NDPS Act registered at Police Station Ding. District Sirsa, Haryana.

2. The case of the prosecution is that on 16.08.2025, co-accused Sumit Kumar and Rajesh were apprehended with 2 kg 696 grams of opium allegedly in their conscious possession without any valid permit or licence. During investigation, it was alleged that the recovered contraband had been supplied by co-accused Sunil and Jai Singh, who had procured it from Jiten, a ₹ resident of Nepal. The prosecution further alleges that an amount of 10 lakh was paid through hawala transactions with the assistance of the present petitioner, leading to the addition of Sections 27A and 29 NDPS Act.

3. L.d. counsel for the petitioner contends that he has been falsely implicated solely on the basis of contradictory disclosure statements of co- accused. It is submitted that the second supplementary disclosure statement of RENU RAWAT

Chandigarh

Sunil @ Bacchi completely changes the prosecution story by replacing the alleged supplier Jiten with Rajesh Kumar and introducing three new accused. including Pawan Kumar, without any independent evidence. He further submits that his name surfaced only through the disclosure statement of co-accused Pawan, who merely alleged that the petitioner worked with him at a shop. No recovery, money trail, hawala transaction, or other incriminating material connects the petitioner with the alleged offence. It is also argued that the allegation regarding a proposed future purchase of 5 kg of opium is purely hypothetical, as no such transaction ever took place and no recovery was effected. The disclosure statements, recorded 26 days after the recovery, are alleged to be self-contradictory, speculative, and legally insufficient to implicate the petitioner.

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 23 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 23 days and apart from the disclosure statement of the co-accused there is no other material connecting RENU RAWAT

Chandigarh 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 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.

(H.S.GREWAL) 27.08.2026

JUDGE renu

Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No Whether Reportable: Yes/No RENU RAWAT

Chandigarh