CRM-M/38345/2026 of SIDHARTH Vs STATE OF HARYANA on 21 July 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.274 dated 20.09.2025, under Sections 21(c) of the NDPS Act, registered at Police Station Sonipat City, Sonepat, Haryana.

2. The case of the prosecution is that, on the basis of secret information, petitioner Sidharth was apprehended and was found to be in conscious possession of 11 grams of Methylenedioxymethamphetamine (MDMA), commonly known as Ecstasy, without any valid permit or licence.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner, however, submits that the petitioner is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is further submitted that no incriminating material has been recovered from the petitioner, and the investigating agency has miserably failed to establish any nexus between the petitioner and the alleged offence. Learned counsel further submits that the petitioner has been in custody for more than nine months and is not involved in any other case under the NDPS Act. He, therefore, prays for ANIL KUMAR

grant of regular bail to the petitioner, keeping in view the nature of the alleged recovery and the period of custody already undergone. He, therefore, prays that the petitioner be released on regular bail, as the conclusion of the trial is likely to take considerable time.

4. Notice of motion.

5. On the asking of the Court, Mr. Vijay Kumar, AAG, Haryana, accepts notice on behalf of the respondent-State 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 9 months.

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

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 9 months, 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, 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. ANIL KUMAR

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.

10. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of. July 21, 2026

(H. S. GREWAL ) anil

JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes Whether reportable : No ANIL KUMAR