CRM-M/37674/2026 of SUNNY RATHAUR Vs STATE OF HARYANA on 17 July 2026

1. The present petition has been filed under Section 483 of BNSS, 2023 (erstwhile Section 439 Cr.P.C.) seeking regular bail to the petitioner in case FIR No. 291 dated 04.09.2025, registered under Sections 22(c) and 29 of the NDPS Act, 1985 at Police Station Bilaspur, District Yamuna Nagar.

2. The case of the prosecution is that on 04.09.2025, co-accused Abdul was apprehended by SI Rajesh Kumar on the basis of secret information, and 1,032 capsules of PROXIOHMSPAS, weighing 645 grams, were recovered from his possession. After completing the requisite formalities under the NDPS Act, Abdul was arrested. During interrogation, he made a disclosure statement implicating Sunny Rathaur as co-accused in the alleged offence.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case as he was neither named in the FIR nor any recovery was effected from him. He further submits that the whole case of the prosecution relies upon the disclosure statement of co-accused Abdul. He also submits that co-accused Sadiq @ Sadiq Malik and Anupam Chandra, have already been granted bail by this Court, vide orders dated 14.05.2026 and 01.07.2026 in CRM-M No.26271 of 2026 (Annexure P-2) and CRM-M No.31101 of 2026 (Annexure P-3) respectively. It is further submitted that the disclosure statements allegedly suffered by the co-accused during policy custody are not admissible in evidence unless duly corroborated by independent material. He also submits that the petitioner is in custody for the last 06 months and 26 days. He, therefore, prays for release of the petitioner on regular bail.

4. Notice of motion.

5. On the asking of the Court, Mr. Vijay Kumar, AAG, 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 06 months and 26 days.

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 06 months and 26 days and that the trial is likely to take a long time to conclude, 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/complainant would be at liberty to seek cancellation of his bail.

(H.S.GREWAL) 17.07.2026

JUDGE seema Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No

Whether Reportable: Yes/No