Allowed¶28

Sajal Rassewatt v. State of Haryana

Bail – NDPS Act, S.22(c)

Punjab & Haryana HC8 Aug 2025CRM-M/18968/2025

Download

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Sajal Rassewatt v. State of Haryana; CRM-M-18968-2025 (O&M); decided 08.08.2025 by Mrs. Justice Manisha Batra (single judge, oral); regular bail granted under Section 483 BNSS 2023 in FIR No. 0025 dated 20.01.2025, Section 22(c) NDPS Act, PS Chandi Mandir, District Panchkula; nomination via co-accused disclosure statements (Mohit Kumar, Nafees, Aamir Khan @ Soni, Suresh Kumar Gupta); 5760 Lomotil tablets; no subsequent recovery; challan filed; custody since 06.02.2025; bail allowed.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner ordered to be released on regular bail subject to furnishing personal/surety bonds to the satisfaction of the trial Court/Duty Magistrate concerned; prosecution left free to apply for cancellation of bail if the petitioner is found involved in any other subsequent case. ¶28

Sajal Rassewatt Vs State of Haryana — Narcotics (NDPS) | Punjab & Haryana HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶28

Issue for consideration

Whether the petitioner, arraigned in FIR No. 0025 dated 20.01.2025 under Section 22(c) NDPS Act at Police Station Chandi Mandir, District Panchkula, and in custody since 06.02.2025, is entitled to regular bail under Section 483 BNSS 2023.

¶15

Court's answer

The petitioner has been nominated in this case on the basis of a series of disclosure statements suffered by the co-accused.

¶24

Ratio / Principle

No subsequent recovery was effected from the petitioner and he is not shown to be involved in any other case of similar nature.

¶28

Key takeaways

Investigation stands completed and challan has been presented; conclusion of trial would take considerable time.ratio¶28
In view of the above facts, no useful purpose would be served by keeping the petitioner in custody any longer; accordingly the bail petition is allowed.ratio¶28
Observations made in the judgment are confined to deciding the bail petition and shall have no bearing on the merits of the case.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Bail - NDPS Act, S.22(c) - petition under S.483 BNSS 2023 for regular bail in FIR No. 0025 dated 20.01.2025, PS Chandi Mandir, Distt. Panchkula - petitioner nominated solely through a chain of disclosure statements of co-accused (Mohit Kumar -> Nafees -> Aamir Khan @ Soni -> Suresh Kumar Gupta -> petitioner), 5760 Lomotil tablets recovered from first co-accused - no subsequent recovery from petitioner, no other similar case against him, investigation complete and challan filed, trial likely to take considerable time - custody since 06.02.2025 - regular bail granted subject to furnishing personal/surety bonds; prosecution may seek cancellation upon involvement in any subsequent case; observations confined to bail adjudication only.

¶1

CRM-M-18968-2025 (O&M)

¶2

-1-

¶3

216

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶5

CRM-M-18968-2025 (O&M) Date of decision: 08.08.2025

Sajal Rassewatt

...Petitioner

Versus

State of Haryana

...Respondent

CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANISHA BATRA

¶12

Present:Mr. Randeep Singh Waraich (Rana), Advocate for the petitioner.

¶13

Mr. Neeraj Poswal, AAG, Haryana.

¶14

MANISHA BATRA, J. (Oral)

¶15

Prayer in this petition, filed under Section 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, is for grant of regular bail to the petitioner in FIR No. 0025 dated 20.01.2025, registered under Section 22(c) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short ‘NDPS Act’) at Police Station Chandi Mandir, District Panchkula.

¶16

Brief facts of the case relevant for the disposal of the present petition are that on 20.01.2025, co-accused Mohit Kumar was apprehended by a police party and recovery of 5760 tablets of Lomotil was effected from him. Upon interrogation, he named one Nafees as supplier of the recovered contraband. Upon arrest, said Nafees named one Aamir Khan @ Soni as supplier of the recovered contraband. He named one Suresh Kumar Gupta as supplier and it was on his disclosure that the petitioner has been nominated in this case as supplier of the recovered contraband. He was arrested on

¶17

MOHAMMAD WASEEM ANSARI 2025.08.11 10:44 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶18

CRM-M-18968-2025 (O&M)

¶19

-2-

¶20

06.02.2025. After completion of necessary investigation and usual formalities, challan was presented in the Court and presently, the petitioner along with co-accused is facing trial for commission of aforementioned offences.

¶21

Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that he has been falsely implicated in this case. He was neither named in the FIR nor was found present at the spot. He has been nominated in this case on the basis of a series of disclosure statements suffered by the co-accused, which is not admissible in evidence. He is not involved in any other case under the NDPS Act. No subsequent recovery has been effected from her. Even otherwise, investigation stands completed and challan has been filed. Conclusion of trial is likely to take time. The petitioner is in custody since 06.02.2025. No useful purpose would be served by keeping him in custody anymore. Therefore, it is urged that the petition deserves to be allowed and the petitioner deserves to be released on regular bail.

¶22

Custody certificate of the petitioner has been filed by the respondent-State. It is submitted by learned State counsel that keeping in view the gravity of the allegations levelled against the petitioner, he is not entitled to get benefit of bail. Hence, it is urged that the petition is liable to be dismissed.

¶23

I have heard learned counsel for the parties at considerable length and have also perused the material placed on record.

¶24

The petitioner is in custody since 06.02.2025. He has been nominated in this case on the basis of a series of disclosure statements suffered by the co-accused. However, no subsequent recovery is shown to

¶25

MOHAMMAD WASEEM ANSARI 2025.08.11 10:44 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶26

CRM-M-18968-2025 (O&M)

¶27

-3-

¶28

have been effected from her. He is not even shown to be involved in any other case of similar nature. Investigation has since been completed and challan has been presented. Conclusion of trial would take considerable time. Keeping in view the aforesaid facts, I am of the considered opinion that no useful purpose would be served by keeping him in custody anymore. Accordingly, the present petition is allowed. The petitioner is ordered to be released on regular bail, subject to her furnishing personal/surety bonds to the satisfaction of the trial Court/Duty Magistrate concerned. However, it will be open for the prosecution to apply for cancellation of bail in case the petitioner is found involved in any other subsequent case.

¶29

It is made clear that any observation made herein above is only for the purpose of deciding the present petition and the same shall have no bearing on the merits of the case.

¶30

Waseem Ansari

¶31

Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No

¶32

Whether reportable Yes/No

¶33

MOHAMMAD WASEEM ANSARI 2025.08.11 10:44 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

Sajal Rassewatt v. State of Haryana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sajal Rassewatt v. State of Haryana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Rinku Singh Vs State of Haryana

Rohit Kumar Vs State of Punjab

Seema Vs State of Punjab

Jatin Bhatia Vs State of Haryana

Habib Mohammad and Others Vs State of Punjab and Another

Manpreet Singh Alias Babbu Vs State of Punjab