Mohan Lal vs State Of Haryana

VIRINDER AGGARWAL, J. (Oral)

Mr. Jitender Dhanda, Advocate, puts in appearance on behalf of the petitioner and files fresh power of attorney, after obtaining ‘no objection’ from the counsel previously representing the petitioner. The same is taken on record, subject to all just exceptions.

Second petition under Section 483 of the BNSS, 2023 for grant of regular bail to the petitioner pending trial in FIR No. 120 dated 25.05.2025, registered under Sections 15-C and 27-A of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, at Police Station Bhattu Kalan, District Fatehabad. The earlier petition preferred by the petitioner was dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 07.04.2026 (Annexure P-4).

Briefly stated, 78.670 kg poppy-husk was allegedly recovered from applicant Mohan Lal on 25.05.2025. During investigation, Section 27-A of the NDPS Act was added on his disclosure regarding procurement from co-accused Davender Kumar, who implicated Vinay and Vijay. Hence the registration of the present FIR.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that no recovery whatsoever has been effected from the petitioner and that he has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is contended that the petitioner was, in fact, apprehended from Rajasthan but was subsequently shown to have been apprehended from the alleged place of recovery and the contraband was falsely planted upon him. It is further submitted that the petitioner has approached the competent authority in Rajasthan and that the mobile-phone location of one of the police officials forming part of the police party places him at the petitioner’s residence, thereby lending material support to the petitioner’s version. It is, accordingly, prayed that the petitioner be extended the concession of regular bail and the present petition be allowed.

Custody certificate filed by learned State counsel is taken on record, subject to all just exceptions.

Per contra, learned State counsel opposes the present petition and submits that the impugned order suffers from neither any illegality nor any material infirmity warranting interference by this Court. It is contended that the case involves recovery of a huge quantity of contraband, thereby attracting the rigours of Section 37 of the NDPS Act. It is further submitted that the petitioner has antecedents and has been involved in seven other criminal cases, reflecting his repeated involvement in criminal activity. Learned State counsel submits that the Trial Court has passed a comprehensive and well-reasoned order after duly considering the factual matrix and the applicable legal principles. Dismissal of the present petition has, accordingly, been prayed for.

Having heard learned counsel for the parties and with their able assistance, this Court has perused the record with due care and deliberation.

The petitioner is alleged to be in conscious possession of 78.670 kilograms of poppy-husk, which falls within the commercial quantity. The petitioner is also stated to be involved in about six other criminal cases and has a previous conviction under the Excise Act in FIR No. 115 dated 10.04.2014, registered under the Excise Act at Police Station Taranagar. His antecedents, viewed cumulatively with the substantial recovery involved in the present case, weigh against extending the concession of regular bail.

The plea of false implication and the contention that the petitioner was apprehended from Rajasthan, rather than from the alleged place of recovery, raise disputed questions of fact. The evidentiary worth of the material relied upon by the petitioner, including the alleged mobile-phone location of a police official, would require proper appreciation of evidence and cannot appropriately be undertaken in the present proceedings so as to record findings on disputed factual issues. Such matters are best left for adjudication by the Trial Court on the basis of the evidence led by the parties.

Having regard to the nature and magnitude of the alleged recovery, the petitioner’s involvement in multiple criminal cases, his antecedents including a previous conviction, and the statutory embargo engrafted under Section 37 of the NDPS Act, this Court is not persuaded to record the requisite satisfaction contemplated thereunder so as to warrant his release on bail. Any further expression of opinion on the merits of the case is considered inappropriate, lest it prejudice the respective cases of the parties at trial.

Accordingly, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the present petition seeking grant of regular bail is dismissed.

In view of the final adjudication of the principal matter, all pending miscellaneous applications, if any, arising out of or ancillary to the present proceedings shall also stand disposed of accordingly. No separate or further orders are called for in respect of such applications, the same having been rendered infructuous in consequence of the present adjudication.