CRM-M/45888/2026 of SANDEEP SINGH Vs STATE OF HARYANA on 21 August 2026

1. Present petition has been filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short ‘BNSS’) for grant of regular bail to the petitioner in case bearing FIR No.128 dated 24.5.2026, registered for the offences punishable under Section 21-B the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short ‘NDPS Act’) (Section 27-A of NDPS Act added later on), at Police Station City Ratia, District Fatehabad.

2. The gravamen of the FIR in question pertains to recovery of 101 grams of heroin.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has iterated that the petitioner is in custody since 24.5.2026. Learned counsel 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 argued that the petitioner has been falsely implicated into the FIR in question. Learned counsel has iterated that the contraband alleged to have been recovered from the petitioner is 101 grams of heroin, which is non-commercial quantity specified in the notification issued under the NDPS Act. Thus, regular bail is prayed for.

4. Learned State counsel seeks to place on record custody certificate dated 20.8.2026. Learned State counsel has opposed the present petition by arguing that allegations raised against the petitioner are serious in nature and, thus, he does not deserve the concession of the regular bail.

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 24.5.2026. The investigation was carried out and challan was presented on 15.7.2026. Total 19 prosecution witnesses have been cited but none have been examined till date. It is, thus, indubitable that conclusion of the trial will take long. It is not in dispute that the contraband allegedly recovered from the petitioner is 101 grams of heroin, which is non-commercial quantity. The rival contentions raised at Bar give rise to debatable issues, which shall be ratiocinated upon during the course of trial. This Court does not deem it appropriate to delve deep into these rival contentions, at this stage, lest it may prejudice the trial. Nothing tangible has been brought forward to indicate the likelihood of the petitioner absconding from the process of justice or interfering with the prosecution evidence.

6.1. As per custody certificate dated 20.8.2026 filed by the learned State counsel, the petitioner has already suffered incarceration for a period of 2 months and 24 days & is not shown to be involved in any other case.

7. In view of above, the present petition is allowed. The petitioner is ordered to be released on regular bail on his furnishing bail/surety bonds to the satisfaction of the Ld. concerned CJM/Duty Magistrate. However, in addition to conditions that may be imposed by the concerned CJM/Duty Magistrate, the petitioner shall remain bound by the following conditions:-

(i) The petitioner shall not mis-use the liberty granted.

(ii) The petitioner shall not tamper with any evidence, oral or documentary, during the trial.

(iii) The petitioner shall not absent himself on any date before the trial.

(iv) The petitioner shall not commit any offence while on bail.

(v) The petitioner shall deposit his passport, if any, with the trial Court.

(vi) The petitioner shall give his cell-phone number to the Investigating Officer/SHO of concerned Police Station and shall not change his cell-phone number without prior permission of the trial Court/Illaqa Magistrate.

(vii) The petitioner shall not in any manner try to delay the trial.

(viii) The petitioner shall submit, on the first working day of every month, an affidavit, before the concerned trial Court, to the effect that he has not been involved in commission of any offence after being released on bail. In case the petitioner is found to be involved in any offence after his being enlarged on bail in the present FIR, on the basis of his affidavit or otherwise, the State is mandated to move, forthwith, for cancellation of his bail which plea, but of course, shall be ratiocinated upon merits thereof.

8. In case of breach of any of the aforesaid conditions and those which may be imposed by concerned CJM/Duty Magistrate as directed hereinabove or upon showing any other sufficient cause, the State/complainant shall be at liberty to move cancellation of bail of the petitioner.

9. Ordered accordingly.

10. Nothing said hereinabove shall be construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case.

(SUMEET GOEL)

JUDGE 21.8.2026 Ashwanii Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No

Whether reportable:

Yes/No