Punjab and Haryana High Court
CRM-M/35845/2026 of VARINDER SINGH Vs STATE OF HARYANA on 10 July 2026
COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-35845-2026 (O&M) Date of Decision:-10.07.2026 VARINDER SINGH …..Petitioner. Versus STATE OF HARYANA .....Respondent. CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE VIKRAM AGGARWAL ***** Present:- Ms. Himani Anand, Advocate for the petitioner. Ms.
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
106+210 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-35845-2026 (O&M) Date of Decision:-10.07.2026 VARINDER SINGH …..Petitioner. Versus STATE OF HARYANA .....Respondent.
CORAM:
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE VIKRAM AGGARWAL ***** Present:- Ms. Himani Anand, Advocate
for the petitioner. Ms. Vasundhara Dalal Anand, Sr. DAG, Haryana.
VIKRAM AGGARWAL, J
. (ORAL)
Prayer in the present petition preferred under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short ‘the BNSS’) is for the grant of regular bail to the petitioner in case FIR No.30 dated 23.01.2026 registered under Sections 15(c) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short ‘the NDPS Act’), (Section 29 of the NDPS Act added later on), at Police Station Pehowa, District Kurukshetra .
2. Custody certificate dated 08.07.2026 filed by learned State counsel in Court is taken on record.
3. As per the prosecution case, on 23.01.2026, on the basis of a secret information, two persons namely Jagjeet Singh and Ramesh Singh PRIYANKA
CRM-M-35845-2026 (O&M) -2- were apprehended and 54 kg 484 grams of poppy husk (commercial quantity) was recovered from them. The petitioner was nominated as an accused on the basis of a disclosure statement suffered by the main accused.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case. She further submits that no recovery has been made from the petitioner; the petitioner is in custody for the last 04 months and 6 days (Since 22.03.2026); final report stands submitted on 15.05.2026; charges have not yet been framed, meaning thereby that trial will take a sufficiently long time; the antecedents of the petitioner are clean as no other case has been registered against him. Learned counsel submits that under the circumstances the petitioner deserves to be released on bail.
5. Per contra, learned State counsel has opposed the bail application. It has been stated that the petitioner is found to have transferred some amount through UPI to the main accused prior to the incident.
6. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties.
7. Concededly, the petitioner is in custody since 22.03.2026. 04 months and 6 days have elapsed. No recovery has been made from him even after his arrest. Final report has been submitted. Antecedents of the petitioner are clean. Trial will take a sufficiently long time. This Court is, therefore, of the considered opinion that it is a fit case for the grant of regular bail to the petitioner. PRIYANKA
CRM-M-35845-2026 (O&M) -3-
8. In view of the aforementioned facts and circumstances, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the present petition is allowed. The petitioner is ordered to be released on regular bail on his furnishing bail/surety bonds to the satisfaction of the concerned trial Court/Chief Judicial Magistrate/Duty Magistrate. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.
(VIKRAM AGGARWAL) July 10, 2026
JUDGE pry
Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No
Whether Reportable: Yes/No PRIYANKA