Allowed¶30

Ashfaq v. State of Haryana

Punjab & Haryana HC8 May 2025CRM-M/2059/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Regular bail; NDPS Act Sections 20 and 29; FIR No.388 dated 06.09.2024; PS Gandhi Nagar, Yamuna Nagar; Section 483 BNSS 2023 petition; custody since 01.10.2024; chargesheet under Section 173 Cr.P.C.; none of 15 prosecution witnesses examined; Article 21 violation on delayed trial; involvement in other NDPS case not a bar to bail; Prabhakar Tewari 2020 (1) R.C.R. (Criminal) 831; Maulana Mohd. Amir Rashadi 2012 (2) SCC 382; Satender Kumar Antil (2022) 10 SCC 51 undertrial prisoners; bail bonds to Illaqa Magistrate; observations not to prejudice trial.

What did the court decide?

Release of petitioner Ashfaq on regular bail during trial on furnishing bail bonds/surety bonds to the satisfaction of the Illaqa Magistrate/Trial Court. ¶30

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

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Release of petitioner Ashfaq on regular bail during trial on furnishing bail bonds/surety bonds to the satisfaction of the Illaqa Magistrate/Trial Court.

¶30

Issue for consideration

Whether the petitioner Ashfaq is entitled to regular bail in case FIR No.388 dated 06.09.2024 under Sections 20 and 29 of the NDPS Act, Police Station Gandhi Nagar, District Yamuna Nagar. +1 more

¶13

Court's answer

No useful purpose would be served by further detention of the accused/petitioner; keeping him in detention without the prospect of the trial being concluded in the near future would be violative of his rights under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.

¶28

Ratio / Principle

Involvement of the petitioner in other cases is not a ground to refuse grant of the concession of regular bail, keeping in view the law laid down in Prabhakar Tewari (2020 (1) R.C.R. (Criminal) 831) and Maulana Mohd. Amir Rashadi (2012 (2) SCC 382).

¶29

Key takeaways

The petition is allowed and the petitioner-Ashfaq is ordered to be released on regular bail during trial on furnishing bail bonds/surety bonds to the satisfaction of the Illaqa Magistrate/Trial Court, without commenting on the merits of the case.ratio¶30
Nothing observed in the judgment shall be construed as an expression of opinion of the Court on the merits of the case, and the trial Court shall proceed without being prejudiced by the observations.obiter¶31

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Punjab and Haryana High Court at Chandigarh (CRM-M-2059-2025, Harpreet Singh Brar, J., decided 08.05.2025) allows a petition under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 and grants regular bail to Ashfaq, accused in FIR No.388 dated 06.09.2024 under Sections 20 and 29 of the NDPS Act at Police Station Gandhi Nagar, District Yamuna Nagar. The petitioner was in custody since 01.10.2024; investigation was complete, the final report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. had been presented, and none of the 15 prosecution witnesses had been examined. The Court held that further detention without the prospect of the trial concluding in the near future would violate the petitioner's rights under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, and that involvement in one more NDPS case is not a ground to refuse regular bail, relying on Prabhakar Tewari (2020 (1) R.C.R. (Criminal) 831) and Maulana Mohd. Amir Rashadi (2012 (2) SCC 382); the observation of the Supreme Court in Satender Kumar Antil v. CBI ((2022) 10 SCC 51) on undertrial prisoners was referred. Bail directed on furnishing bonds/sureties to the satisfaction of the Illaqa Magistrate/Trial Court, with an express stipulation that the observations shall not be construed as an opinion on merits nor prejudice the trial.

¶1

219 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶2

CRM-M-2059-2025

¶3

Date of decision: 08.05.2025

Ashfaq

....Petitioner

Versus

State of Haryana

...Respondent

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARPREET SINGH BRAR

¶10

Present: Mr. Samay Sandhawalia, Advocate for the petitioner.

¶11

M r. Vikas Bhardwaj, AAG, Haryana.

¶12

HARPREET SINGH BRAR, J. (ORAL)

¶13

The present petition has been filed under Section 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 seeking regular bail in case bearing FIR No.388 dated 06.09.2024 (Annexure P-1) under Sections 20 and 29 of the NDPS Act registered at Police Station Gandhi Nagar, District Yamuna Nagar.

¶14

A police party was present near Kamani Chowk, Yamuna Nagar, in connection with patrolling, where a special informer came up and gave a secret information that Vishal Rana son of Jasbir Singh sells ganja and even today, he is carrying a contraband and selling the same sitting in his room at his house in Shiv Colony and if a raid is conducted now at his house he can be apprehended with ganja patti. On finding the information credible, the Investigating Officer informed the senior police officials and sent a report under Section 42 of the NDPS Act and FIR (supra) was registered.

¶15

Learned counsel for the petitioner inter alia contends that the petitioner is not named in the secret information. In the first disclosure statement on 07.09.2024 made by the co-accused, he named one Sohib Khan and thereafter, on 09.09.2024, co-accused-Vishal made another disclosure

¶16

Neha 2025.05.08 18:50 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶17

CRM-M-2059-2025

¶18

-2-

¶19

statement during his custodial interrogation which is not admissible in the eyes of law as the same is hit by Section 26 of the Indian Evidence Act. Except the disclosure statement of the co-accused, there is no other concrete evidence against the petitioner. He further submits that the petitioner is in custody since 01.10.2024 and till date, not even a single prosecution witness has been examined out of 15.

¶20

The learned State counsel has filed custody certificate in the Court today which is taken on record and per contra, opposes the grant of regular bail to the petitioner on the ground that during investigation, the petitioner was found to be the supplier of the contraband, as such, his complicity is duly proved on record. He is involved in one more case under the NDPS Act and as such, does not deserve any relief.

¶21

A two Judge Bench of Hon’ble Supreme Court in ‘ Satender Kumar Antil v. CBI’ (2022) 10 SCC 51 , with respect to prevailing conditions of undertrial prisoner in India has observed:

¶22

“6. Jails in India are flooded with undertrial prisoners. The statistics placed before us would indicate that more than 2/3rd of the inmates of the prisons constitute undertrial prisoners. Of this category of prisoners, majority may not even be required to be arrested despite registration of a cognizable offence, being charged with offences punishable for seven years or less. They are not only poor and illiterate but also would include women. Thus, there is a culture of offence being inherited by many of them. As observed by this Court, it certainly exhibits the mindset, a vestige of colonial India, on the part of the investigating agency, notwithstanding the fact arrest is a draconian measure resulting in curtailment of liberty, and thus to be used sparingly. In a democracy, there can never be an impression that it is a police State as both are conceptually opposite to each other.”

¶23

Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after perusing the

¶24

record of the case, it transpires that the petitioner is behind the bars since 01.10.2024. Investigation is complete. The final report under Section 173

¶25

Neha Cr.P.C. was presented before the concerned Court and trial of the case has not 2025.05.08 18:50 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶26

CRM-M-2059-2025

¶27

-3-

¶28

made much progress as out of 15 prosecution witnesses, none has been examined so far. The culpability, if any, would be determined at the time of trial. No useful purpose shall be served by further detention of the accused/petitioner. Keeping the petitioner in further detention without the prospect of the trial being concluded in the near future, would be violative of his rights under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.

¶29

Keeping in view the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in ‘ Prabhakar Tewari Vs. State of U.P. and another ’ 2020 (1) R.C.R. (Criminal 831) and ' Maulana Mohd. Amir Rashadi Vs. State of U.P. and Another' , 2012 (2) SCC 382, the involvement of the petitioner in other cases would not be a ground to refuse grant of concession of regular bail.

¶30

In view the above, the present petition is allowed. Thus, without commenting upon the merits of the case lest it may prejudice the outcome of the trial, the petitioner-Ashfaq is ordered to be released on regular bail during trial on his furnishing bail bonds/surety bonds to the satisfaction of Illaqa Magistrate/Trial Court.

¶31

Nothing observed hereinabove shall be construed as expression of opinion of this Court on merits of the case and the trial Court shall proceed without being prejudiced by observations of this Court.

¶32

		(HARPREET SINGH BRAR) JUDGE
08.05.2025
Neha
	Whether speaking/reasoned	: Yes/No
	Whether reportable	: Yes/No

¶33

Neha 2025.05.08 18:50 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

Ashfaq v. State of Haryana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ashfaq 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Jogindero Vs State of Punjab

Bhola Singh Vs State of Punjab

M/S Nikamal Limited Vs State of Punjab and Others

Manjinder Singh Vs State of Punjab and Another

Nirmal Singh Vs State of Haryana

Pawan Kumar Vs Ut of Chandigarh