CRM-M/16910/2026 of RAJNEESH SHARMA Vs STATE OF HARYANA on 23 July 2026

1. Nagarik S the petitio offences p Psychotro DLF Phas

2. apprehend vehicle, 1 bottles of Tramadol medicine Codeine s recovered

3. has been indirect c -16910-2026

THE HIGH COURT OF PUN CHANDIG

Sharma

V/s of Haryana

decision: 23.07.2026 Uploading : 23.07.2026 M: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE Mr. M.S. Mavi, Advocate for Mrs. Priyanka Sadar, Senior ***** T GOEL, J. (Oral) Present petition has been filed Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short oner, in case bearing FIR No.189 punishable under Sections 21(c) a pic Substances Act, 1985 (for sh se-I, Gurugram. The gravamen of allegations ded while he was travelling in a S 147 bottles of Codeine-based co f Codeine-based cough syrup (B based medicine (Piengo Plus) an (Pyeevon-Spas Plus) have been syrup and 6720 capsules contain from the possession of the petitio Learned counsel for the petiti falsely implicated into the FIR connection with the alleged reco

NJAB AND HARYANA AT ARH

CRM-M-16910-2026

....Petitioner

....Respondent SUMEET GOEL r the petitioner. DAG Hry. d under Section 483 of the Bharat ‘BNSS’) for grant of regular bail dated 18.07.2025, registered for and 22(c) of the Narcotic Drugs a hort ‘NDPS Act’), at Police Stat against the petitioner is that he w wift car and during the search of ough syrup (Batch S-361024), 1 Batch S-371024), 4800 capsules nd 1920 capsules of Tramadol bas recovered. In total, 264 bottles ning Tramadol have allegedly be oner. ioner has iterated that the petition R in question and has no direct overy. Learned counsel has furth

tiya l to the and ion was the of sed s of ing ner or her AJAY KUMAR

CRM-M- iterated th witness h learned co of recove records to been brou prosecutio of the ND prosecutio contended witness t alleged re entire cas police off and there the consc Furthermo surmises alleged r provisions letter and liability th iterated th undergone trial is l prosecutio -16910-2026

hat the alleged recovery is hi has been associated with the re ounsel, there are inherent discre ery as no material in the shape o establish the presence of the ught on record which comple on. Learned counsel has further s DPS Act have not scrupulously on case suffers from inherent de d that the prosecution has faile o the search and seizure proc ecovery has been made from a se against the petitioner rests sol ficials, alleged recovery memos is no independent corroboration cious possession of the narco ore, the entire case of the prose and lacks any credible evidence recovery. It has been further s of Section 42 of the NDPS A d spirit. Learned counsel has itera hereof cannot be fastened upon hat the petitioner is in custody e a substantial period of custody ikely to take a considerable on witnesses cited, none has ighly doubtful as no independ covery proceedings. According epancies with regard to exact pla e of CCTV footage or call deta petitioner at the alleged spot h etely demolishes the case of submitted that mandatory provisio been complied with, and thus, efects. Learned counsel has furth ed to join any independent pub ceedings despite the fact that a public place. Furthermore, lely on the documents prepared and statements of police witnes n nay credible material to establ otic and psychotropic substan cution is based on conjectures a e to connect the petitioner with r contended that the mandato Act have not been complied with ated that the trial is delayed and the petitioner. It has been furth since 18.07.2025 and has alrea

y. According to learned counsel, time to conclude as out of been examined. Moreover,

ent to ace ails has the ons the her blic the the by ses lish nce. and the ory h in the her ady the the AJAY KUMAR

CRM-M- petitioner likelihood granted th the grant o

4. by arguing and, thus, Learned S meet the r on this sco involved released o justice a According

5. book as al

6. petitioner while trav bottles of syrup, 48 Tramadol the consid contraban Furthermo out which bail to the -16910-2026

r is not required for any further d of tampering with evidence he concession of regular bail. On of regular bail is entreated for. Per contra, learned State coun g that the allegations raised agains , the petitioner does not deserv State counsel has further submitte rigors of Section 37 of the NDPS A ore alone. Furthermore, the petiti in three other cases under the N on bail, there is all likelihood that and also interfere with the gly, the dismissal of the petition in I have heard counsel for the lso the record produced before me Indubitably, serious allegatio

r. As per the prosecution case velling in a car and during the f Codeine-based cough syrup, 11 800 capsules of Tramadol based l based medicine have been reco dered opinion of this Court, the d, disentitle the petitioner to the ore, no accentuating or exceptio h may prima facie constitute a com e petitioner, especially in light of t r investigation and that there is or influencing witnesses if he n the strength of these submissio nsel has opposed the present petit st the petitioner are serious in nat ve the concession of regular b ed that the petition in hand does Act and is, thus, liable to be rejec ioner is a habitual offender as he NDPS Act. In case, the petitioner he may abscond from the process prosecution witnesses/eviden n hand is prayed for. rival parties and perused the pap e. ons have been levelled against e, the petitioner was apprehend e search of the said vehicle, 1 17 bottles of Codeine-based cou d medicine and 1920 capsules overed from the boot of the car. allegations as also recovery of discretionary relief of regular b nal circumstances have been ma mpelling ground for grant of regu the recovery of commercial quant

no e is ons, ion ure ail. not cted e is r is s of nce. per- the ded ugh of . In the ail. ade ular tity AJAY KUMAR

CRM-M- of the con the petitio material. falsely im the surrou clarified d

7. investigati 14.01.202 examined forth befo the petitio mandatory passed by Ashruba N India vers 2025 and S Appeal (C

7.1. period of contraban well. A pr the Hon’b Gora = 20 INSC 618

7.2. considere -16910-2026

ntraband. The Court cannot accep oner merely based on bald asse The argument of the learned co mplicated into the FIR in question, unding circumstances of the inci during the course of trial. The petitioner was arrest ion was carried out and challan q

6. Out of total 16 cited prose till date. From the rival submis ore this Court, no cause nay plaus oner to meet with the rigors of Se y in nature. Reference in this reg the Hon’ble Supreme Court titled Nakade, Special Leave to Appe sus Vigin K. Varghese, Special L State of Punjab versus Sukhwind Crl.) No.5020/2026. Furthermore, the petitioner is incarceration undergone by the p d recovered, is not sufficient to gr rofitable reference in this regard ble Supreme Court titled as State o 026 INSC 411 and State of Punja

8. Another important nay signi d at this stage is the criminal a t the plea of the false implication ertions unsupported by any cog ounsel that the petitioner has be cannot be accepted, at this stage, ident raise doubts that can only ted on 18.07.2025 whereinaf qua the petitioner was presented ecution witnesses, none has be ssions as also the material brou sible cause is made out in favour ection 37 of the NDPS Act which gard can be made to the judgment d as Union of India versus Namd eal (Crl.) No.9792/2025; Union Leave Petition (Crl.) No(s).7768 der Singh @ Gora, Special Leave s in custody since 18.07.2025. T petitioner vis.-a-vis., the quantity rant the concession of regular bail can be made to the judgment(s) of Punjab vs. Sukhwinder Singh ab vs. Balraj Singh @ Billa = 20 ificant factor which deserves to antecedents of the petitioner wh

n of gent een , as be fter on een ght r of h is t(s) deo of 8 of e to The y of l as ) of h @

be ich AJAY KUMAR

CRM-M- reflect his pendency repetition the prese concern r no accent constitute especially on record

8. case in h commerci to abscon witnesses/

9.

10. opinion on

11. application

July 23, 2 Ajay

-16910-2026

s involvement in three other cas y of cases is not a ground to d of offence or misuse of liberty c nt case, the antecedents of the regarding the potential risk if he tuating circumstances have bee e a compelling ground for the gra y in light of the gravity of the a . Hence, keeping in view the e hand; especially the contraband ial in nature, criminal antecedents d from the process of justice & / evidence; the petition in hand de Ordered accordingly. Nothing said hereinabove sha n the merits of the case. Since the main case has bee n(s), if any, shall also stand dispo

Whether speaking/reasoned: Whether reportable:

ses of similar nature. Though m eny the bail but the likelihood cannot be ruled out at this stage. e petitioner do raise a legitim e is released on bail. Furthermo en made which may prima fa ant of regular bail to the petition allegations and the evidence plac entirety of the factual milieu of d alleged to be recovered be s; likelihood of the petitioner go also interfere with the prosecut eserves to be dismissed. all be construed as an expression en decided, pending miscellaneo osed off. (SUMEET GOEL)

JUDGE

Yes/No

Yes/No

ere of . In mate ore, acie ner, ced the ing ing ion n of ous AJAY KUMAR