Ankit Alias Laddu v. State of Haryana

o o o o o o o o oo INoTHEoHIGHoCOURToOFoPUNJABoANDoHARYANAoATo CHANDIGARHo o o o o o o o o o o 216o o o o o o ooCRM-M-42138-2025o o o o o o o ooDateoofodecision:oo08.08.2025o o o Ankito@oLadduo o o o o o o o o ....Petitionerooo V/so o StateoofoHaryanaoo o o o o o o o o o ....Respondento o o CORAM:oo HON'BLEoMR.oJUSTICEoSUMEEToGOELo o Present:oo Mr.oBalrajoGujjar,oAdvocateo&o Mr.oPardeepoBalyan,oAdvocateoforotheopetitioner.oo o o o o Mr.oDeepakoKumaroGrewal,oDAG,oHaryana.o o o oo *****o SUMEEToGOEL,oJ.o(ORAL)oo o

1.o o PresentopetitionohasobeenofiledounderoSectiono483oofoBNSSo 2023oforograntooforegularobailotootheopetitioneroinocaseobearingoFIRoNo.31o datedo25.02.2025,oregisteredoforotheooffencesopunishableounderoSectionso20o

(B)(ii)o(c)o&o27oofoNDPSoActoatoPoliceoStationoMohana,oDistrictoSonipat.o

2.oo o Theogravamenoofotheoallegationsopertainsotoorecoveryoofo1oKgo 670ogmsoofoCharasofromoco-accusedoofotheopetitioneroandoroleoattributedotoo theo petitionero iso ofo contributingo moneyo foro theo purchaseo ofo contrabando whoseonameohasobeenoarrayedoinotheodisclosureostatementoofoco-accusedo CRM-M-42138-2025o o P a g e o?o2o o o o

3.oo o Learnedoforotheopetitionerohasoarguedothatotheopetitioneroisoino custodyosinceo12.06.2025.oLearnedocounselohasoiteratedothatotheopetitionero hasobeenofalselyoimplicatedointootheoFIRoinoquestionoandonoocontrabandohaso beeno recoveredo fromo theo petitionero ando theo onlyo allegationo againsto theo petitioneroisoofodepositingoRs.20,000/-oinotheoaccountoofotheoco-accusedoforo procuringotheocontrabandoinoquestion.ooLearnedocounseloforotheopetitionero hasofurtheroarguedothatotheomandatoryoprovisionsoofotheoNDPSoActohaveonoto beenocompliedowith,oandothus,otheoprosecutionocaseosuffersofromoinherento defects.oThus,oregularobailoisoprayedofor.o

4.oo o Learnedo Stateo counselo haso opposedo theo presento petitiono byo arguingo thato theo allegationso raisedo againsto theo petitionero areo seriouso ino nature.oLearnedoStateocounselohasofurtherosubmittedothatotheoFIRoinoquestiono pertainsotoorecoveryoofo1okgo670ogmsorecoveryoofoCharasoand,otherefore,otheo baro undero Sectiono 37o ofo theo NDPS,o 1985o iso attracted.o o Furthermore,o expressingoconcernsoaboutotheopossibilityoofotheopetitionerofleeingofromotheo trialoproceedings,olearnedoStateocounselosubmitsothatopetitionerooughtonotobeo grantedo theo concessiono ofo regularo bail.o Heo has,o accordingly,o soughto foro dismissaloofotheopetitionoinohand.ooooHeoalsooseeksotooplaceoonorecordocustodyo certificateodatedo07.08.2025oinoCourt,owhichoisotakenoonorecord.o

5.oo o Io haveo heardo counselo foro theo rivalo partieso ando haveo goneo throughotheoavailableorecordsoofotheocase.o

6.oo o Theo petitionero waso arrestedo ono 12.06.2025o whereinaftero investigationowaso carriedo outoando challano wasopresentedo ono09.07.2025.oo Totalo 19o prosecutiono witnesseso haveo beeno citedo ando noneo haso beeno examinedotillodate.ooTheocontrabandoinoquestiono1oKgo670okgsoofoCharaso CRM-M-42138-2025 P a g e | 3

o whichoisocommercialoinonatureoandotheosameoisostatedotoobeoreco2eredofromo theoco5accused.oo1heoprimeoalle'ationoa'ainstotheopetitioneroisoofodepositin'o *s.%&,&&&85oinotheoaccountoofoco5accusedoforoprocurin'otheosaidocontraband.ooo

3.+.o o Keepin'oino2iewotheo7uantityoofocontrabandoreco2eredowhichoiso +ok'o30&o'msoofo4harasoandoatotheothresholdoofotheocommercialo7uantityo ando natureo ofo alle'ationso a'ainsto theo petitioner,o thiso 4ourto fa2ourablyo considerotheopleaoforo'rantoofore'ularobailotootheopetitioner.ooo

3.%.o o In the factual milieu of the case, this Court is of the considered opinion that fetters of Section 37 of the NDPS Act have been met with so as to enlarge the petitioner on bail. It would be apposite to refer a judgment of this Court in Jaswinder Singh alias Kala versus State of Punjab passed in CRM-M-33729-2025 (2025:PHHC:089161); the relevant whereof reads thus: "14. As a sequitur to above-said rumination, the following postulates emerge:

(I) (i) A bail plea on merits; in respect of an FIR under NDPS Act of 1985 involving offence(s) under Section 19 or Section 24 or Section 27-A thereof and for offence(s) involving commercial quantity; is essentially required to meet with the rigour(s) of Section 37 of NDPS Act.

(ii) The rigour(s) of Section 37 of NDPS Act do not apply to a bail plea(s) on medical ground(s), interim bail on account of any exigency including the reason of demise of a close family relative etc.

(iii) The rigour(s) of Section 37 of NDPS Act pale into oblivion when bail is sought for on account of long incarceration in view of Article 21 of the Constitution of India i.e. where the bail-applicant has suffered long under-trial custody, the trial is procrastinating and folly thereof is not attributable to such bail-applicant.

II. The twin conditions contained in Section 37(1)(b) of NDPS Act are in addition to the conditions/parameters CRM-M-42138-2025 P a g e | 4

o contained in Cr.P.C./BNSS or any other applicable extant law.

III. The twin conditions contained in Section 37(1)(b) of NDPS Act are cumulative in nature and not alternative i.e. both the conditions are required to be satisfied for a bail-plea to be successful.

IV. For consideration by bail Court of the condition stipulated in Section 37(1)(b)(i) of NDPS Act i.e. "there are reasonable grounds for believing that he is not guilty of such offence":

(i) The bail Court ought to sift through all relevant material, including case-dairy, exclusively for the limited purpose of adjudicating such bail plea.

(ii) Such consideration, concerning the assessment of guilt or innocence, should not mirror the same degree of scrutiny required for an acquittal of the accused at the final adjudication & culmination of trial.

(iii) Plea(s) of defence by applicant-accused, if any, including material/documents in support thereof, may be looked into by the bail-Court while adjudicating such bail plea.

V. For consideration of the condition stipulated in Section 37(1)(b)(ii) i.e. 'he is not likely to commit any offence while on bail':

(i) The word 'likely' ought to be interpreted as requiring a demonstrable and substantial probability of re-offending by the bail-applicant, rather than a mere theoretical one, as no Court can predict future conduct of the bail-applicant.

(ii) The entire factual matrix of a given case including the antecedents of the bail-applicant, role ascribed to him, and the nature of offence are required to be delved into. However, the involvement of bail-applicant in another NDPS/other offence cannot ipso facto result in the conclusion of his propensity for committing offence in the future.

(iii) The bail-Court may, at the time of granting bail, impose upon the applicant-accused a CRM-M-42138-2025 P a g e | 5

o condition that he would submit, at such regular time period/interval as may stipulated by the Court granting bail, an affidavit before concerned Special Judge of NDPS Court/Illaqa (Jurisdictional) Judicial Magistrate/concerned Police Station, to the effect that he has not been involved in commission of any offence after being released on bail. In the facts of a given case, imposition of such condition may be considered to be sufficient for satisfaction of condition enumerated in Section 37(1)(b)(ii).

VI. There is no gainsaying that the nature, mode and extent of exercise of power by a Court; while satisfying itself regarding the conditions stipulated in Section 37 of NDPS Act; shall depend upon the judicial discretion exercised by such Court in the facts and circumstances of a given case. No exhaustive guidelines can possibly be laid down as to what would constitute parameters for satisfaction of requirement under Section 37 (ibid) as every case has its own unique facts/circumstances. Making such an attempt is nothing but a utopian endeavour. Ergo, this issue is best left to the judicial wisdom and discretion of the Court dealing with such matter." o

3.".oo o *e2ertin'o too theo factualo milieuo ofo theo caseo ino hand; aso pero custodyocertificateodatedo&0.&!.%&%,ofiledobyotheolearnedoStateocounsel,otheo petitioneroisoinocustodyosinceo+%.&3.%&%,.o(urther,oasoperotheosaidocustodyo certificateotheopetitioneroisostatedotoobeoin2ol2edoino&!ocases.ooHowever, this factum cannot be a ground sufficient by itself, to decline the concession of regular bail to the petitioner in the FIR in question when a case is made out for grant of regular bail qua the FIR in question by ratiocinating upon the facts/circumstances of the said FIR. Reliance in this regard can be placed upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Maulana Mohd. Amir Rashadi v. State of U.P. and another, 2012 (1) RCR (Criminal) 586; a Division Bench judgment of the Hon'ble Calcutta High Court in case of CRM-M-42138-2025 P a g e | 6

o Sridhar Das v. State, 1998 (2) RCR (Criminal) 477 & judgments of this Court in CRM-M No.38822-2022 titled as Akhilesh Singh v. State of Haryana, decided on 29.11.2021, and Balraj v. State of Haryana, 1998 (3) RCR (Criminal) 191. Suffice to say, the further detention of the petitioner in custody is not required in the facts and circumstances of the case.

¶7In view of the above, the petition is allowed. Petitioner is ordered to be released on regular bail on his furnishing bail/surety bonds to the satisfaction of the learned concerned CJM/Duty Magistrate. However, in addition to conditions that may be imposed by the concerned CJM/Duty Magistrate, the petitioner shall remain bound by the following conditions:-

(i) The petitioner shall not mis-use the liberty granted.

(ii) The petitioner shall not tamper with any evidence, oral or documentary, during the trial.

(iii) The petitioner shall not absent himself on any date before the trial.

(iv) The petitioner shall not commit any offence while on bail.

(v) The petitioner shall deposit his passport, if any, with the trial Court.

(vi) The petitioner shall give his cell phone number to the Investigating Officer/SHO of concerned Police Station and shall not change his cell-phone number without prior permission of the trial Court/Illaqa Magistrate.

(vii) The petitioner shall not in any manner try to delay the trial.

(viii) The petitioner shall submit, on the first working day of every month, an affidavit, before the concerned trial Court, to the effect that she has not been CRM-M-42138-2025 P a g e | 7

o involved in commission of any offence after being released on bail. In case the petitioner is found to be involved in any offence after her being enlarged on bail in the present FIR, on the basis of her affidavit or otherwise, the State is mandated to move, forthwith, for cancellation of her bail which plea, but of course, shall be ratiocinated upon merits thereof.

¶8In case of breach of any of the aforesaid conditions and those which may be imposed by concerned CJM/Duty Magistrate as directed hereinabove or upon showing any other sufficient cause, the State/complainant shall be at liberty to move cancellation of bail of the petitioner.

¶9Ordered accordingly.

¶10Nothing said hereinabove shall be construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case.

¶11Since the main case has been decided, pending miscellaneous application, if any, shall also stands disposed off.

(SUMEET GOEL) JUDGE August 08, 2025 Naveeno o o o o