Rahul Vs State of Haryana

The petitioner has filed the second petition under Section 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 with a prayer to grant regular bail to him in case FIR No.171 dated 01.04.2023 registered under Section 20 (IIC) of NDPS Act, 1985, at Police Station Hodal, District Palwal.

¶13

As per case of the prosecution, on 01.04.2023, on the basis of the secret information, Rahul-petitioner and co-accused, namely, Dinesh were apprehended by the police, while they were carrying 36 kg 260 grams Ganja in two plastic sacks, which falls under the commercial quantity.

¶14

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was arrested in the present case on 01.04.2023 and has undergone about 02 years and 03 months of custody. He further submits that the petitioner has been falsely involved in the present case and he has no concern with the alleged recovery. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of SLP No. 6690 of 2022, titled as

¶15

HEMLATA 2025.07.22 22:57 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶16

CRM-M-421-2025

¶17

-2-

¶18

“Dheeraj Kumar Shukla Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh ”, in which the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as follows:-

¶19

“2. The allegations are that on a secret information, the police authorities intercepted two vehicles on 23.06.2020 i.e. one 'Gray' coloured 'Honda City' car and the second 'White' coloured ' Swift Dzire' car. On an interrogation at the spot, Praveen Maurya @ Puneet Maurya, Rishab Kumar Maurya and Dheeraj Kumar Shukla were found to be occupants of the 'Honda City' car whereas the petitioner was driving the 'Swift Dzire' car. On taking a search, more than 92 kgs. Ganja was allegedly recovered from 'Honda City' car where as more than 65 kgs. Ganja was recovered from 'Swift Dzire' Car. The accused were arrested at the spot. The petitioner is, thus, in custody since 24.06.2020.

¶20

3. It appears that some of the occupants of the 'Honda City' Car including Praveen Maurya @ Puneet Maurya have since been released on regular bail. It is true that the quantity recovered from the petitioner is commercial in nature and the provisions of Section 37 of the Act may ordinarily be attracted. However, in the absence of criminal antecedents and the fact that the petitioner is in custody for the last two and a half years, we are satisfied that the conditions of Section 37 of the Act can be dispensed with at this stage, more so when the trial is yet to commence though the charges have been framed.

¶21

4. For the reasons stated above but without expressing any views on the merits of the case, the petitioner is directed to be released on bail subject to his furnishing bail bonds to the satisfaction of the trial Court.”

¶22

On the other hand, learned State counsel has vehemently opposed the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner on the ground that the quantity of contraband recovered from the petitioner is commercial in nature

¶23

HEMLATA 2025.07.22 22:57 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶24

CRM-M-421-2025

¶25

-3-

¶26

and the rigors of Section 37 of NDPS Act would apply to the facts of the present case. However, learned State counsel admits that there is no other criminal case under NDPS Act against the present petitioner.

¶27

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 6. In the present case, the petitioner was arrested on 01.04.2023 and is in custody for the last about 02 years and 03 months. There is no other criminal case against him.

¶28

Consequently, keeping in view the above stated facts and the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Dheeraj Kumar Shukla's case (Supra) , the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail subject to his furnishing bail bonds/surety bonds to the satisfaction of the trial Court/ subject to the following

¶29

conditions:-

¶30

(i) The petitioner shall not directly or indirectly make any inducment, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case, so as to dissuade him to disclose such facts to the Court or to any other authority.

¶31

(ii) The petitioner shall remain present before the Court on the dates fixed for hearing of the case.

¶32

(iii) The petitioner shall not absent himself from the Court proceedings except on the prior permission of the Court concerned.

¶33

(iv) The petitioner shall surrender his passport, if any, (if already not surrendered), and in case he is not holder of the same, he shall swear an affidavit to that effect.

¶34

(v) The petitioner shall also file his affidavit before the concerned Court, mentioning his ordinary place of residence and number of mobile phone, which shall be used by him during the pendency of the trial. In case of change of place

¶35

HEMLATA 2025.07.22 22:57 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶36

CRM-M-421-2025

¶37

-4-

¶38

of residence/mobile number, he shall share the details with the concerned Court/learned Trial Court.

¶39

(vi) In case, the petitioner involves in any other criminal activity, during the pendency of the trial, it shall be viewed seriously and the prosecution shall be at liberty to move a petition for cancellation of bail granted to him.

¶40

(vii) The concerned Court may insist on two heavy local sureties and may also impose any other condition, in accordance with law, while accepting the bail bonds and surety bonds of the petitioner.

¶41

Pending application, if any, is also disposed of.

¶42

22.07.2025

¶43

hemlata

¶44

	(N.S.SHEKHAWAT) JUDGE
Whether speaking/reasoned	: Yes/No
Whether reportable	: Yes/No

¶45

HEMLATA 2025.07.22 22:57 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

Rahul v. State of Haryana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rahul 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

Abhishek Visht @ Abhi Vs State of Punjab

Gurminder Singh Alias Sethi Vs State of Punjab

Khushwinder Singh and Others Vs State of Punjab and Ors.

Gurdev Singh Vs State of Haryana

Rohit Singh Vs State of Haryana

Navdeep Kumar Vs State of Punjab