Vikas @ Rahul @ Gamme Wala vs State Of Haryana

MANISHA BATRA, J. (ORAL)

The instant petition has been filed by the petitioner under Section 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short “BNSS”) for grant of regular bail in case arising out of FIR No.147 dated 13.03.2025 registered under Section 105 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for short “BNS”) and Section 29 of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act (for short “NDPS Act”) at Police Station Shahabad, District Kurukshetra.

As per the allegations, on 12.03.2025, on receipt of an information regarding dead body of an unknown person lying near Indira Colony Bandh, Shahabad, a police party reached there. On conducting search of the dead body, one cellphone was found in the pocket of the pant of the victim. In the meanwhile, a call was received on that cellphone and the caller introduced himself as Deepak, maternal uncle of victim-Sahil. He was informed about the death of the victim Sahil. The dead body was taken to hospital. The statement of Ankit Kumar, brother of the victim Sahil, had been recorded, who stated that the victim was a drug addict. He was even admitted in de-addiction center in the last year. In the morning of 12.03.2025, the victim had received some call and had left home. The complainant came to know that he had gone in a vehicle along with accused Mohit Thakur, Pankaj Thakur and Sahil Lamba to Shahabad Markanda and then he had received intimation about his death. He raised suspicion that his death had occurred due to overconsumption of some intoxicant and that he had consumed intoxicants on the instigation of his friends Mohit Thakur, Pankaj Thakur and Sahil Lamba, who had instigated him to consume intoxicants. After registration of FIR, investigation proceedings were initiated. Post-mortem examination of dead body was conducted. The cause of death was opined to be consumption of tetrahydrocannabinol poisoning and its complications. The accused Pankaj Kumar alias Thakur was arrested on 11.08.2025. On interrogation, he suffered disclosure statement admitting his involvement in the case. On his disclosure, the present petitioner along with Gurpreet Singh alias Kaku Sulkhani was nominated as accused. The petitioner was arrested on 24.08.2025. He too suffered a disclosure statement. Mohit Thakur and Sahil Lamba, named as accused, were found to be innocent. Investigation now stands concluded.

It is argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that he has been falsely implicated in this case on the disclosure statement of co-accused, which cannot be considered to be legally admissible in evidence. No recovery has been effected from him. He was not named in the FIR. He is in custody for a period of over one year. The chances of conclusion of trial in near future are bleak as no witness has been examined so far. The co-accused Gurpreet Singh and Pankaj Kumar have been extended benefit of bail by the trial Court. On parity, he too deserves to be extended the same benefit. His further incarceration would not serve any fruitful purpose. It is, therefore, argued that he deserves to be given benefit of bail.

Per contra, learned State counsel has argued that keeping in view the nature of the allegations as leveled against the petitioner, he does not deserve to be given benefit of bail.

This Court has heard the rival submissions made by learned counsel for the parties.

The petitioner along with the victim and co-accused is alleged to be involved in consumption of drugs after taking the same from co-accused Gurpreet Singh. As per the allegations, on 12.03.2025, the petitioner and co-accused Pankaj Kumar had taken the victim from his house. He had consumed drugs and had died. The co-accused Pankaj and Gurpreet Singh have been extended benefit of bail. Principle of parity weighs in favor of the petitioner. It is only on thorough assessment of the evidence to be produced during trial that any definite conclusion as to involvement of the petitioner in commission of offence punishable under Section 105 of BNS can be drawn. The further incarceration of the petitioner in the peculiar circumstances of the case would not be justified. Even otherwise, it is well-settled proposition of law that pre-trial incarceration should not be a replica of post-conviction sentencing and that bail is the rule and jail is an exception. The object of the jail is to secure appearance of the accused during trial, and it cannot be preventive or punitive. Taking into consideration the above discussed facts, this Court is of the considered opinion that the petitioner has made out a case for grant of bail. Accordingly, the petition is allowed and the petitioner is ordered to bebe released on bail subject to his furnishing personal as well as surety bonds to the satisfaction of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate/trial Court/Duty Magistrate concerned.

It is, however, clarified that the observations made above shall not be construed as an expression of opinion of this Court on the merits of the case and shall not influence the outcome of the trial in any manner.

Since the main petition has been allowed, pending application, if any, is rendered infructuous.