Dismissed¶¶33

Manish Kumar @ Manni v. State of Haryana

Punjab & Haryana HC5 Sept 2025CRM-M/34314/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

NDPS bail dismissed; Section 37 NDPS rigors; commercial quantity heroin 457 grams; recovery from beneath co-driver seat of Innova HR-85A-0206; hired driver plea rejected; advance tip-off named petitioner and co-accused; conscious possession; Section 50 NDPS compliance noted; Charanjit Singh alias Amritpal CRM-M-13795-2022 distinguished; FIR No.37/2025 PS Parao District Ambala; Sections 21 and 29 NDPS Act; Punjab and Haryana High Court; CRM-M No.34314 of 2025 (O&M); Surya Partap Singh, J.

What did the court decide?

The plea that the petitioner was merely a hired driver unaware of the presence of contraband fails to inspire confidence, because the advance tip-off given to the police party by the informer named both the petitioner and his co-accused as involved. ¶¶27

Manish Kumar @ Manni Vs State of Haryana — Narcotics (NDPS) | Punjab & Haryana HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶¶33

Issue for consideration

Whether the petitioner is entitled to release on bail in FIR No.37 dated 09.02.2025 (Sections 21 and 29, NDPS Act), involving recovery of 457 grams of heroin, a commercial quantity, from the vehicle he was driving. +1 more

¶¶14

Court's answer

The quantity of contraband recovered from the vehicle being driven by the petitioner being commercial quantity (457 grams of heroin), the rigors of Section 37 of the NDPS Act are attracted to the bail application.

¶¶28

Ratio / Principle

¶¶27

Key takeaways

There is nothing on record on the basis of which the Court can draw an inference that the petitioner is not guilty of the aforesaid offence, or that if released on bail he is not likely to commit an offence of similar nature again; the twin conditions of Section 37 are thus not satisfied.ratio¶¶28
Charanjit Singh alias Amritpal (supra) is not applicable to the present case: there the accused was arrested on the basis of suspicion, having thrown away the plastic envelop containing contraband, whereas here the recovery was effected from the vehicle being driven by the petitioner pursuant to information received in advance.ratio¶¶33

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Bail dismissed - NDPS commercial quantity (Surya Partap Singh, J.; decided 05.09.2025). In FIR No.37 dated 09.02.2025, P.S. Parao, District Ambala, under Sections 21 and 29 NDPS Act, 457 grams of heroin (commercial quantity) was allegedly found in a polythene bag beneath the co-driver's seat of vehicle HR-85A-0206 after a tip-off; petitioner Manish Kumar @ Manni, arrested on the spot with co-accused Sunil Kumar, sought bail pleading he was an unaware hired driver. Held: the plea fails as the advance tip-off named both the petitioner and co-accused; commercial quantity attracts rigors of Section 37 NDPS Act, and no material exists to infer innocence or absence of likelihood of reoffending. Charanjit Singh alias Amritpal, CRM-M-13795-2022, distinguished as it rested on a suspicion-based arrest after the accused threw away the contraband, unlike the present recovery pursuant to advance information. Petition dismissed.

¶1

CRM-M No.34314 of 2025 (O&M)

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

209 CRM-M No.34314 of 2025 (O&M) Date of Decision :05.09.2025

¶5

Manish Kumar @ Manni

......Petitioner

Versus

State of Haryana

...... Respondent

¶10

CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA PARTAP SINGH

¶11

Present : Mr. Deepak Singh Saini, Advocate for the petitioner.

¶12

Mr. Parveen Kumar Aggarwal, Addl. A.G., Haryana.

¶13

SURYA PARTAP SINGH, J. (Oral):

¶14

For the commission of offence punishable under Sections 21 and 29 of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, the FIR No.37 dated 09.02.2025 has been lodged in Police Station Parao, District Ambala. The petitioner along with his co-accused was arrested on the spot on 09.02.2025 and since then he is in custody. By virtue of present petition the petitioner is seeking for his released on bail in the above mentioned case. 2. Succinctly, the facts emerging from record are that the above mentioned FIR came into being in the backdrop of information received by Sub-Inspector Manoj Kumar with regard to travelling of petitioner and his coaccused Sunil Kumar in an Innova vehicle, along with contraband. According to prosecution on the basis of above mentioned tip-off when the vehicle bearing No.HR-85A-0206 was intercepted, due formalities as prescribed under Section 50 of NDPS Act were undertaken and thereafter, on checking of

¶15

MANOJ KUMAR 2025.09.09 09:21 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document

¶16

CRM-M No.34314 of 2025 (O&M)

¶17

¶18

vehicle it was found that beneath the seat of co-driver, there was a polythene bag containing 457 grams of heroin (a commercial quantity).

¶19

Heard.

¶20

It has been contended on behalf of the petitioner that petitioner is innocent having no nexus with the crime and that he was simply driving the vehicle as a hired driver. According to learned counsel for the petitioner the petitioner was not aware of the fact that Sunil Kumar was carrying any contraband in the above mentioned vehicle and, therefore, any criminality cannot be attributed to the bona fide actions of the petitioner. While referring to the observations made by this Court in the case of Charanjit Singh alias Amritpal Vs. State of Punjab, rendered in CRM-M-13795-2022 , learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the present case is squarely covered by the ratio of law laid down in the above mentioned case. As per learned counsel for the petitioner the trial is not likely to be concluded in near future and all the witnesses are official witness and, therefore, there is no chance of tampering of evidence by the petitioner. According to learned counsel for the petitioner, in view of above, the petitioner is entitled for the benefit of bail.

¶21

The learned State counsel has controverted the above mentioned argument. According to learned State counsel the allegations in the present case, against the petitioner, are that the petitioner was driving the vehicle wherein beneath the seat of co-driver commercial quantity of contraband was being carried. According to learned State counsel from the contents of FIR itself it is revealed that tip-off given to the police party was with regard to involvement of petitioner as well as his co-accused and, therefore, the petitioner is equally liable for being in conscious possession of contraband. As

¶22

MANOJ KUMAR 2025.09.09 09:21 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document

¶23

CRM-M No.34314 of 2025 (O&M)

¶24

¶25

per learned State counsel since heavy quantity of narcotic substance has been recovered from the possession of the petitioner, amounting to commercial quantity the petitioner is not entitled for the benefit of bail.

¶26

The record has been perused carefully.

¶27

In the present case, at the very outset, it is pertinent to mention here that allegations against the petitioner are that he was driving a vehicle and under neath the co-driver’s seat contraband was kept. Although the petitioner has taken a plea that he was not aware of the presence of above mentioned contraband, being a hired driver, but prima facie the above mentioned plea of the petitioner stands falsified in view of the fact that as per contents of FIR the tip-off given to the police party, by the informer, before the recovery was that the petitioner as well as his co-accused, both, were involved. Since the information to the police party was given in advance this plea of the petitioner fails to inspire confidence that he was merely a hired driver and, therefore, not aware of the presence of contraband in the vehicle.

¶28

Otherwise also this fact cannot be ignored that the quantity of contraband recovered from the vehicle being driven by the petitioner is commercial quantity and, therefore, rigors of Section 37 of NDPS Act are attracted in the present case. There is nothing on record to show that this Court can draw an inference that the petitioner is not guilty for the commission of abovesaid offence, or that, if released on bail he is not likely to commit any offence of similar nature again.

¶29

As far as, the observations made in the case of Charanjit Singh alias Amritpal (supra) are concerned the above mentioned precedent is not applicable to the present case as in the case of Charanjit Singh (supra), the

¶30

MANOJ KUMAR 2025.09.09 09:21 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document

¶31

CRM-M No.34314 of 2025 (O&M)

¶32

¶33

accused was arrested on the basis of suspicion, as he had thrown away the plastic envelop containing contraband. In the instant case, there is no such element of suspicion, as the recovery was effected from the vehicle being driven by the petitioner, and it was pursuant to an information in advance. 10. Therefore, taking into consideration the above mentioned factors and also the fact that provisions of Section 37 of NDPS Act are applicable in this case, the present application is held to be devoid of merit, deserving dismissal. The same is hereby dismissed, accordingly.

¶34

05.09.2025 Manoj Bhutani

¶35

(SURYA PARTAP SINGH) JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether reportable Yes/No

¶36

MANOJ KUMAR 2025.09.09 09:21 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document

Manish Kumar @ Manni v. State of Haryana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Manish Kumar @ Manni v. State of Haryana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Baljeet Singh Vs Hans Raj

Indusind Bank Ltd. Vs Jaivinder Singh

Rekha Rani Vs Jaiveer Singh Shastri & Anr.

Hitender Singh Vs Vikash Raghav

Raj Kumar Vs Pardeep Saini and Anr.

Sunder Singh Vs Dharampal