CRM-M/42648/2026 of MOHAMMAD MOHSIN Vs STATE OF HARYANA on 7 August 2026

205

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

CRM-M No.42648 of 2026 Date of Decision:- 07.08.2026

Mohammad Mohsin …..Petitioner. Versus State of Haryana .....Respondent.

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE VIKRAM AGGARWAL ***** Present:- Mr. Sandeep Singh Jattan, Advocate,

Ms. Varsha Choudhary, Advocate and

Ms. Sundeep Kaur, Advocate

for the petitioner.

Ms. Vasundhara Dalal Anand, Sr. DAG, Haryana.

VIKRAM AGGARWAL, J. (ORAL)

This is the third petition preferred under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short, ‘the BNSS’) for the grant of regular bail to the petitioner in case FIR No.124 dated 30.03.2025 registered under Sections 22-C and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short, ‘the NDPS Act’), at Police Station Sadar Yamuna Nagar, District Yamuna Nagar, the first bail application having been dismissed as not pressed on 27.03.2026 (Annexure P-4) and the second having been dismissed on 14.05.2026 (Annexure P-5).

2. Custody certificate dated 05.08.2026 filed in Court today, is YAG DUTT

CRM-M No.42648 of 2026 -2-

taken on record.

3. On 30.03.2025, one Mohd. Tabis was apprehended on the basis of a secret information and 933 capsules of Tramadol (commercial quantity) are stated to have been recovered from him. On the basis of a disclosure statement, the present petitioner was arrested on 04.05.2025 and is in custody since then.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been falsely implicated. He submits that apart from the disclosure statement, there is no other evidence against the petitioner and no recovery had been made from him. He submits that the antecedents of the petitioner are clean. He further submits that investigation stands completed; final report stands submitted on 25.05.2025; charges stand framed on 07.08.2025; no prosecution witness has been examined so far; trial will still take a sufficiently long time and, therefore, no useful purpose would be served by keeping the petitioner in custody any longer.

5. Per contra, learned State counsel has opposed the bail application.

6. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties.

7. Concededly, the petitioner was arraigned as an accused on the basis of disclosure statement of the co-accused. No doubt, recovery of a commercial quantity of Tramadol was made from the main accused Mohd. Tabis. However, even after the arrest of the petitioner, no recovery was made from him. He is in custody since 04.05.2025. He has clean antecedents. Still further, investigation stands completed. Final report has YAG DUTT

CRM-M No.42648 of 2026 -3-

been submitted on 25.05.2025. Charges stand framed on 07.08.2025 but no prosecution witness has been examined till date. Thus, trial will still take a sufficiently long time and, therefore, no useful purpose would be served by keeping the petitioner in custody any longer.

8. In view of the aforementioned facts and circumstances, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, 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 concerned trial Court/Chief Judicial Magistrate/Duty Magistrate.

(VIKRAM AGGARWAL) August 07, 2026

JUDGE Yag Dutt

Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No

Whether Reportable: Yes/No YAG DUTT