CRM-M/40267/2026 of ADITYA MOHANTY @ ADITYA MOHANTI @ AADI Vs STATE OF HARYANA on 28 July 2026

1. Allowed as prayed for. CRM-M-40267-2026

1. The present petition has been filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (erstwhile Section 439 Cr.P.C.) seeking regular bail to the petitioner in case FIR No.258 dated 30.07.2024, under Section 20 of the NDPS Act, (Section 27A of the NDPS Act added later on), registered at Police Station Civil Lines Jind, District Jind.

2. The case of the prosecution is that on the basis of a secret information, co-accused Krishan Kumar was apprehended on 30.07.2024 from whom 30 kg. Ganja was allegedly recovered. During the course of investigation, co-accused Krishan Kumar suffered disclosure statement and named another co-accused Sombir from whom he purchased the contraband. On 07.09.2024, co-accused Sombir was arrested and suffered disclosure

Chandigarh statement claiming that he had procured the contraband from the present petitioner.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner, however, submits that the petitioner was not named in the FIR and was arraigned as an accused only on the basis of disclosure statement of co-accused Sombir. Besides the disclosure statement, there is no incriminating material qua the petitioner which would connect him with the alleged recovery and nothing has been recovered from him. Learned counsel further submits that the disclosure statements allegedly suffered by the co-accused during police custody are not admissible in evidence unless duly corroborated by independent material. He further submits that the petitioner is in custody for the last more than 01 year, 10 months and 01 day. He, therefore, prays for release of the petitioner on regular bail as the trial qua the petitioner is likely to take a long time as none of the 20 cited prosecution witnesses has been examined so far.

4. Notice of motion.

5. On the asking of the Court, Mr. Vishal Kashyap, Senior DAG, Haryana, accepts notice on behalf of the respondent and vehemently opposes the prayer for grant of regular bail to the petitioner. He has filed the custody certificate of the petitioner in Court, which is taken on record. As per the custody certificate, the petitioner is in custody for the last more than 01 year, 10 months and 01 day. He, upon instructions, submits that none of the 20 cited prosecution witnesses has been examined so far.

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

Chandigarh

7. In view of the above submissions of learned counsel for the parties and keeping in view the facts that the petitioner is in custody for the last more than 01 year, 10 months and 01 day, he was not named in the FIR, no recovery has been effected from him, and that the trial is likely to take a long time to conclude as none of the 20 cited prosecution witnesses has been examined so far, therefore, this Court deems it appropriate to grant the concession of regular bail to the petitioner during the pendency of the trial as the continuous detention of the petitioner would not serve the ends of justice.

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 bonds, surety bonds to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court/Duty Magistrate/Chief Judicial Magistrate concerned.

9. However, it is made clear that in case the petitioner misuses the concession of bail, the State would be at liberty to seek cancellation of his bail.

(H.S.GREWAL) July 28, 2026

JUDGE Sonia

Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No

Whether reportable

: Yes/No

Chandigarh