Sagar vs State Of Haryana

VIRINDER AGGARWAL, J. (Oral)

The present petition has been filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (Section 439 Cr.P.C.) for grant of regular bail to the petitioner in FIR No. 12 dated 12.01.2026, registered under Section 22-B of the NDPS Act, 1985, at Police Station City Mandi Dabwali, during the pendency of the trial, in the interest of justice.

As per the prosecution case, on 12.01.2026, a police party headed by ASI Pritam Singh, while on patrolling and crime-checking duty at Gol Chowk, Mandi Dabwali, received secret information that the petitioner Sagar was standing near Guru Gobind Singh Stadium, Dabwali-Sirsa Road, with intoxicant tablets in a black polythene bag and was looking for customers. Acting upon the information, the police party reached the disclosed place, where the petitioner, on seeing the police vehicle, allegedly dropped the black polythene bag and attempted to flee. He was apprehended by the police party. Upon search of the polythene bag, 10 strips containing 100 tablets of Buprenorphine and Naloxone Sublingual Tablets and 60 strips containing 600 tablets of Tapentadol Hydrochloride Tablets were allegedly recovered. The recovered articles were taken into possession in accordance with law and the proceedings were also videographed through the e-witness application. During the proceedings, the petitioner allegedly disclosed that the recovered intoxicant tablets had been purchased from co-accused Deepak @ Deepu. The present FIR was initially registered under Section 22-B of the NDPS Act, and the petitioner is alleged to be in possession of the recovered psychotropic substance.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case and that the alleged recovery of 100 tablets of Buprenorphine has been found to weigh 12.25 grams, which falls within the non-commercial quantity. It is further submitted that the alleged recovery of Tapentadol tablets does not attract the rigours applicable to commercial quantity. It is contended that the provisions of Section 42 of the NDPS Act have not been duly complied with and no independent witness was associated with the alleged recovery proceedings. The entire prosecution case rests upon the testimony of police officials. It is further submitted that Challan has already been presented and his custodial interrogation is no longer required. The trial is likely to take considerable time and, therefore, further incarceration would serve no useful purpose.

Notice of motion.

Mr. Karan Veer Singh, Senior DAG, Haryana, has put in appearance on behalf of the respondent-State and has filed the custody certificate dated 12.09.2026, which is taken on record, subject to all just exceptions. As per the custody certificate, the petitioner has already undergone a total custody period of 08 months.

Learned State counsel opposes the prayer for bail, submitting that the petitioner was apprehended at the spot and 100 tablets of Buprenorphine along with 600 tablets of Tapentadol were recovered from the black polythene carried by him. It is further submitted that the recovery was duly effected and the proceedings were videographed. The petitioner is also stated to have disclosed the name of co-accused from whom he had allegedly purchased the intoxicant tablets.

Be that as it may, the alleged recovery from the petitioner comprises 100 tablets containing Buprenorphine, the total weight whereof is stated to be 12.25 grams, which is below the notified commercial quantity. The alleged recovery of 600 tablets of Tapentadol Hydrochloride would also require consideration in the light of the applicable statutory notifications and the actual quantity of the active substance. The petitioner has also raised questions regarding compliance with the mandatory provisions governing search and seizure, including the manner in which the alleged recovery was effected and the non-association of independent witnesses. The evidentiary value of the alleged recovery and the aforesaid objections are matters which can appropriately be examined during the course of trial. The investigation already stands completed and the challan has been presented before the learned Trial Court. Consequently, no further custodial interrogation of the petitioner is stated to be required. The petitioner has remained in custody and, considering that the trial is likely to take considerable time to conclude, continued incarceration of the petitioner would not serve any useful purpose.

Reliance is placed upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Dataram Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Another, 2018 (2) R.C.R. (Criminal) 131, wherein it has been held that grant of bail is the rule and refusal thereof is an exception, and that a person is presumed to be innocent until proven guilty. It is further submitted that the right to speedy trial forms an integral part of the right to life and personal liberty guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, and the same has been consistently recognised by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, including in Balwinder Singh v. State of Punjab & Another (SLO (Crl.) No. 8523/2024). In these circumstances, continued incarceration of the petitioner would serve no useful purpose, particularly when the trial can be effectively safeguarded by imposing appropriate conditions.

Accordingly, the present petition is allowed, and the petitioner is ordered to be admitted on regular bail, subject to furnishing requisite bail and surety bonds to the satisfaction of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate concerned/Illaqa Magistrate/Duty Magistrate, as the case may be, and further subject to the following conditions:-

The petitioner shall not, directly or indirectly, make any inducement, threat, or promise to any person acquainted with the facts and circumstances of the case so as to dissuade such person from disclosing such facts before the Court or to the investigating agency.

The petitioner shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence in any manner whatsoever, nor shall attempt, directly or indirectly, to influence, intimidate, or contact any prosecution witness.

The petitioner shall not leave the territorial limits of India without obtaining the prior permission of the learned Trial Court. In the event he is in possession of a passport, he shall furnish its particulars before the Investigating Officer as well as the learned Trial Court.

The learned Illaqa Magistrate/Duty Magistrate, before accepting the bail and surety bonds, shall obtain from the petitioner his permanent residential address as well as present correspondence address, duly supported by appropriate documentary proof. The Investigating Officer shall verify the correctness of the said addresses within 48 hours from the acceptance of the bail bonds and shall place a verification report on the record. In the event either of the addresses is found to be false, fictitious, or incorrect, it shall be open to the prosecution to seek cancellation of the concession of bail in accordance with law.

The petitioner shall furnish before the learned Trial Court, either at the time of furnishing the bail bonds or within such period as may be specified by the Court, Permanent Account Number (PAN), Aadhaar Number, particulars of all operative bank accounts, and a declaration disclosing details of immovable properties, if any. Any concealment of material particulars or furnishing of false information shall constitute a valid ground for seeking cancellation of bail in accordance with law.

The petitioner shall intimate the Investigating Officer as well as the learned Trial Court, in writing, of any change in residential address or mobile number within seven days from the date of such change.

The petitioner shall not commit any offence of a similar nature during the pendency of the trial and shall remain present before the learned Trial Court on each and every date fixed, unless his personal appearance is exempted in accordance with law. He shall not absent himself from the proceedings without obtaining prior permission of the learned Trial Court. In the event of any violation of the aforesaid conditions or his unauthorized absence from the trial proceedings, it shall be open to the learned Trial Court to proceed in accordance with law, including cancellation of the concession of regular bail and issuance of appropriate coercive process, including warrants of arrest.