Deepak Kumar vs State of Haryana

VIKRAM AGGARWAL, J (ORAL)

The 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.373, dated 08.11.2025 registered at Police Station Sector 40, District Gurugram, under Sections 20(b) (ii) (C) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short 'the NDPS Act') and Section 29 NDPS Act (added subsequently).

On 08.11.2025, on the basis of a secret information, one Vimal Kumar was apprehended and was allegedly found to be in possession of 20 k.g. 700 grams of ganja (commercial quantity). During interrogation, the said Vimal Kumar is stated to have suffered a disclosure statement naming the petitioner to be the person from whom the contraband had been purchased. Accordingly, the petitioner was arrested on 10.11.2025 and is in custody since then.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been falsely implicated. He submits that the petitioner is in custody for the last 9 months and 18 days. He further submits that no recovery has been made from him. He submits that apart from the disclosure statement, there is no other evidence against the petitioner to link him with the offence. Learned counsel submits that the antecedents of the petitioner are clean; investigation stands completed; final report has been submitted; charges have been framed on 18.02.2026 and out of 21 witnesses, none has been examined. He submits that under the circumstances, trial will take a sufficiently long time, therefore, no useful purpose would be served by keeping the petitioner in custody any longer.

Per contra, learned State counsel has opposed the bail application, stating that there is a transaction of Rs.30,000/- between the wife of co-accused Vimal Kumar and the present petitioner.

I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties.

The petitioner is in custody for the last 9 months and 18 days, he having been arrested on 10.11.2025. No recovery has been made from him. Apart from the disclosure statement, there is no direct evidence against the petitioner at this stage to link him with the offence. His antecedents are clean. The money transaction can be on many accounts which shall be determined during the course of trial. Investigation stands completed. Final report has been submitted and charges have been framed on 18.02.2026. Out of 21 witnesses, none has been examined as of now. It is, therefore, clear that trial will take a sufficiently long time and in the considered opinion of this Court, no useful purpose would be served by keeping the petitioner in custody any longer.

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 also stand disposed of.