CRM-M/36333/2026 of RAMBHU MUKHIYA BIN ALIAS LAMBOO KUMAR Vs STATE OF HARYANA on 13 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. 376 dated 30.10.2025 under Section 18-B of NDPS Act (Section 29 of NDPS Act added later on), registered at Police Station- Sadar Yamuna Nagar Haryana.

2. The case of the prosecution is that co-accused namely Pardeep Kumar Rana was apprehended alongwith 3 Kgs. 750 grams of opium. During the course of investigation, the petitioner was nominated as an accused on the basis of the disclosure statement made by the co-accused and was accordingly implicated in the present case.

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 Pardeep Kumar Rana. Besides

Chandigarh 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. She also submits that the petitioner is in custody for the last more than 08 months and 05 days and is not involved in any other case. Moreover, similarly situated co-accused Raj Kapoor Mahato has already been granted bail by this Court in CRM-M-28836-2026 on 26.05.2026 (Annexure P-3). She, therefore, prays for release of the petitioner on regular bail as the trial is likely to take a long time because none out of 18 cited prosecution witnesses has been examined so far.

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 more than 08 months and 05 days. He, upon instructions, submits that none out of 18 cited prosecution witnesses has been examined so far.

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 08 months and 05 days, he is not involved in any other case, he was not named in the FIR, co-accused has already been granted bail and that the trial is

Chandigarh likely to take a long time to conclude as none out of 18 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/complainant would be at liberty to seek cancellation of his bail.

(H.S.GREWAL) July 13, 2026

JUDGE Sonia

Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No

Whether reportable

: Yes/No

Chandigarh