CRM-M/27952/2026 of RANJIT Vs STATE OF HARYANA on 27 July 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 No.140 dated 09.05.2024 under Section 20b(ii)(c), 29, 61, 85 of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 registered at Police Station Mundkati, District Palwal (Annexure P-

1) 2. The case of the prosecution is that a total recovery of 30 kg 500 gram of ganja patti was effected from the conscious possession of the petitioner and his co-accused Udayveer and Nepal.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case and has been in custody since 09.05.2024. It is further contended that the recovery in the case is a false and planted one, and nothing was effected from the petitioner. Learned counsel further submits that no specific role has been attributed to the petitioner either in purchasing or selling the alleged ganja recovered in the present case. It is also submitted that the petitioner is not involved in the business of such RENU RAWAT

Chandigarh substances. It is further submitted that the co-accused, namely Ramesh Banka, has already been enlarged on regular bail by this Court in CRM-M-69800 of 2025, vide order dated 09.03.2026.

4. Notice of motion.

5. Mr. Neeraj Sheoran, Sr. DAG,Haryana accepts notice on behalf of the respondent-State. 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 02 years, 02 months and 17 days and is not involved in any other case. It is further submitted that out of the 22 prosecution witnesses cited, only five witnesses have been examined and 17 witnesses are yet to be examined.

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

7. After hearing the rival contentions and considering the fact that the petitioner is in custody for the last 02 years, 02 months and 17 days and is not involved in any other case; co-accused has already been granted concession of regular bail 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 further incarceration of the petitioner. 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. RENU RAWAT

Chandigarh

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 indulging in any other criminal case/activity, it shall be open to the State to seek cancellation of his bail. 27.07.2026

(H.S.GREWAL) renu

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

Chandigarh