CRM-M-31101-2026 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 229 CRM-M-31101-2026 Date of decision : 01.07.2026 ANUPAM CHANDRA ... PETITIONER Versus STATE OF HARYANA .. RESPONDENT CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.S.GREWAL Present:- Mr. Parth Aneja, Advocate and Mr. Namit Khurana, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Vijay Kumar, AAG, Haryana. *** H.S. Grewal, J.(Oral) 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.291 dated 04.09.2025 (Annexure P-1), under Sections 22(c) and 29 of NDPS Act registered at Police Station Bilaspur, Yamuna Nagar. 2. The case of the prosecution is that on the basis of secret information, co-accused Abdul was apprehended and 1,032 capsules of PROXIOHM-SPAS weighing 645 grams were recovered from his possession. During investigation, Abdul suffered a disclosure statement naming co-accused Sunny. Later on co-accused Sunny suffered a disclosure statement implicating co-accused Sadiq who in turn also suffered a disclosure statement, wherein he SONIA GUGNANI 2026.07.02 16.41 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh CRM-M-31101-2026 -2- allegedly disclosed the involvement of the present petitioner in the commission of the alleged offence.

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 third disclosure statement of co-accused Sadiq. Besides the disclosure statement, there is no incriminating material qua the petitioner which would connect him with the alleged offence and no recovery has been effected from him. It is further submitted that the disclosure statements allegedly suffered by the co-accused during police custody are not admissible in evidence unless duly corroborated by independent material. He further submits that the petitioner is in custody for the last more than 06 months and 08 days and co-accused Sadiq @ Sadiq Malik has already been granted bail by this Court in CRM-M-26271-2026 on 14.05.2026 (Annexure P-3). He, therefore, prays for release of the petitioner on regular bail as the trial is likely to take a long time as only charges have been framed and none of the prosecution witness 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 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 06 months and 08 days. He, upon instructions, submits that although charges have been framed but none of the prosecution witness has been examined so far. SONIA GUGNANI 2026.07.02 16.41 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh CRM-M-31101-2026 -3- 6. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 7. After hearing the rival contentions of the learned counsel for the parties and keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case that apart from the disclosure statement, there is no other evidence to connect the petitioner with the recovery of alleged contraband; he is in custody for the last more than 06 months and 08 days; co-accused has already been granted bail; the conclusion of trial is likely to take time as only charges have been framed and none of the prosecution witness 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 would be at liberty to seek cancellation of his bail. (H.S.GREWAL) July 01, 2026 JUDGE Sonia Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/No SONIA GUGNANI 2026.07.02 16.41 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh

CRM-M-31101-2026 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 229 CRM-M-31101-2026 Date of decision : 01.07.2026 ANUPAM CHANDRA ... PETITIONER Versus STATE OF HARYANA .. RESPONDENT CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.S.GREWAL Present:- Mr. Parth Aneja, Advocate and Mr. Namit Khurana, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Vijay Kumar, AAG, Haryana. *** H.S. Grewal, J.(Oral) 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.291 dated 04.09.2025 (Annexure P-1), under Sections 22(c) and 29 of NDPS Act registered at Police Station Bilaspur, Yamuna Nagar. 2. The case of the prosecution is that on the basis of secret information, co-accused Abdul was apprehended and 1,032 capsules of PROXIOHM-SPAS weighing 645 grams were recovered from his possession. During investigation, Abdul suffered a disclosure statement naming co-accused Sunny. Later on co-accused Sunny suffered a disclosure statement implicating co-accused Sadiq who in turn also suffered a disclosure statement, wherein he SONIA GUGNANI 2026.07.02 16.41 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh CRM-M-31101-2026 -2- allegedly disclosed the involvement of the present petitioner in the commission of the alleged offence.

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 third disclosure statement of co-accused Sadiq. Besides the disclosure statement, there is no incriminating material qua the petitioner which would connect him with the alleged offence and no recovery has been effected from him. It is further submitted that the disclosure statements allegedly suffered by the co-accused during police custody are not admissible in evidence unless duly corroborated by independent material. He further submits that the petitioner is in custody for the last more than 06 months and 08 days and co-accused Sadiq @ Sadiq Malik has already been granted bail by this Court in CRM-M-26271-2026 on 14.05.2026 (Annexure P-3). He, therefore, prays for release of the petitioner on regular bail as the trial is likely to take a long time as only charges have been framed and none of the prosecution witness 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 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 06 months and 08 days. He, upon instructions, submits that although charges have been framed but none of the prosecution witness has been examined so far. SONIA GUGNANI 2026.07.02 16.41 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh CRM-M-31101-2026 -3- 6. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 7. After hearing the rival contentions of the learned counsel for the parties and keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case that apart from the disclosure statement, there is no other evidence to connect the petitioner with the recovery of alleged contraband; he is in custody for the last more than 06 months and 08 days; co-accused has already been granted bail; the conclusion of trial is likely to take time as only charges have been framed and none of the prosecution witness 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 would be at liberty to seek cancellation of his bail. (H.S.GREWAL) July 01, 2026 JUDGE Sonia Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/No SONIA GUGNANI 2026.07.02 16.41 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh