Rinku Singh Vs State of Haryana

Prayer in this petition, filed under Section 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, is for grant of regular bail to the petitioner in case arising out of FIR No. 239 dated 12.07.2024, registered under Sections 15(c) and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short ‘NDPS Act’) at Police Station Civil Lines, Jind, District Jind.

¶16

Brief facts of the case relevant for the disposal of the present petition are that on 12.07.2024, on the basis of a secret information, co-accused Shinder Pal @ Shinder was apprehended by the police and recovery of 898 kgs. of poppy husk was effected from him, which was kept in his rented house. He suffered a disclosure statement nominating the petitioner as his associate. The petitioner was also arrested on the same day. During the course of investigation, the petitioner disclosed that he had purchased the recovered contraband from co-accused Manoranjan Yadav from Jharkhand in a truck bearing registration number PB-11-CR-9741. Subsequently, it was

¶17

MOHAMMAD WASEEM ANSARI 2025.08.07 10:26 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶18

CRM-M-2818-2025 (O&M)

¶19

-2-

¶20

found that the said truck was driven by one Amarjeet Sharma. He was arrested and the aforesaid truck was taken into possession. He was found to be the owner of the said truck. 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 argued that he has been falsely implicated in this case. There is nothing on record to connect the petitioner with the subject crime. He was not named in the FIR. He has been nominated in this case on the basis of the disclosure statement suffered by co-accused Shinder Pal, which is not admissible in evidence. Co-accused Amarjeet Sharma and Manoranjan Yadav have been granted concession of regular bail by this Court. On the grounds of parity, the petitioner too deserves to be extended benefit of bail. Even otherwise, investigation has since been completed and challan has been filed. Conclusion of trial is likely to take time.. 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 granted benefit of regular bail.

¶22

Status report has been filed on behalf of the respondent-State. Learned Deputy Advocate General, Haryana has argued that keeping in view the gravity of the allegations levelled against the petitioner, he is not entitled to get benefit of bail. It is also argued that if the petitioner is released on bail, he may abscond or indulge in similar offences. 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

MOHAMMAD WASEEM ANSARI 2025.08.07 10:26 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶25

CRM-M-2818-2025 (O&M)

¶26

-3-

¶27

The petitioner has been nominated in this case on the basis of the disclosure statement suffered by co-accused Shinder Pal, from whom recovery of 898 kgs. of poppy husk was effected. The allegations against the petitioner are that he along with the said co-accused had procured the recovered contraband from Jharkhand. A perusal of the status report reveals that the petitioner was actively involved in commission of subject crime along with co-accused Shinder Pal. The allegations against him are quite serious in nature. The case of aforesaid co-accused, who have been granted regular bail, cannot be stated to be at par with that of the petitioner. Investigation has since been completed and challan has been filed. Trial is going on. The apprehension expressed by learned State counsel that if the petitioner is released on bail, he may abscond or indulge in similar offences, can also not be stated to be unfounded. Keeping in view the discussion as made above, the quantity of contraband recovered in this case, the role played by the petitioner, the quantum of sentence which the conviction may entail and the attendant facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the considered opinion that the petitioners do not deserve to be granted benefit of regular bail, at this stage. Hence, the petitions are dismissed.

¶28

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.

¶29

07.08.2025 (MANISHA BATRA) Waseem Ansari JUDGE

¶30

07.08.2025

¶31

Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether reportable Yes/No

¶32

MOHAMMAD WASEEM ANSARI 2025.08.07 10:26 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

Rinku Singh v. State of Haryana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rinku Singh v. State of Haryana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Kuldeep Singh Vs State of Haryana and Another

Dr. Amreen Kaur Sidhu Vs Swaran Singh

Nikhil Sharma Vs State of Haryana

Rohit Kumar Vs State of Punjab

Seema Vs State of Punjab

Manjot Singh Alias Jotta Vs State of Punjab