Disposed¶25

Deepak Kumar v. State of Haryana

Punjab & Haryana HC9 Sept 2025CRM-M/43225/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Deepak Kumar v State of Haryana; CRM-M-43225-2025; Punjab & Haryana High Court Chandigarh; Justice Aaradhna Sawhney; second bail petition disposed; NDPS Act Section 22(c)/61/85; FIR No.147 dated 27.06.2020 PS Kalan Wali District Sirsa; Tramadol Hydrochloride 800 tablets; Manpreet Singh @ Babli @ Bali disclosure statement; habitual offender three like cases; Section 313 CrPC statement 12.09.2025; direction to Additional Sessions Judge Sirsa expedite trial three weeks; bail not granted.

What did the court decide?

Direction to the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sirsa to make all possible efforts to dispose of the trial within a period of three weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order; bail not granted. ¶25

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

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶25

Issue for consideration

Whether bail should be granted to petitioner Deepak Kumar, accused in FIR No.147 dated 27.06.2020 (Sections 22(c)/61/85, NDPS Act), Police Station Kalan Wali, District Sirsa, in his second bail petition. +1 more

¶13

Court's answer

Bail was not granted; in view of the petitioner's own request for expedition of the trial, the petition was disposed of on that request.

¶25

Ratio / Principle

Petition disposed of with a direction to the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sirsa to make all possible efforts to dispose of the trial within a period of three weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of the order.

¶25

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

CRM-M-43225-2025, High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh, decided 09.09.2025 (Aaradhna Sawhney J., oral): Deepak Kumar v. State of Haryana — second bail petition of an accused in FIR No.147 dated 27.06.2020, PS Kalan Wali, District Sirsa, for offences under Section 22(c)/61/85 of the NDPS Act. Counsel asserted false implication solely via the disclosure statement of co-accused Manpreet Singh @ Babli/@ Bali (caught with 800 Tramadol Hydrochloride tablets, naming petitioner as supplier); petitioner recorded in custody since 14.07.2000; State opposed citing supply of commercial-quantity contraband and involvement in three like cases. With all prosecution witnesses examined and the trial adjourned to 12.09.2025 for the accused's Section 313 CrPC statement, counsel instead sought expedition; the Court disposed of the petition, directing the Additional Sessions Judge, Sirsa to make all possible efforts to dispose of the trial within three weeks of receipt of certified copy. Bail itself was neither granted nor expressly denied. Speaking/reasoned: Yes; reportable: No.

¶1

CRM-M-43225-2025

¶2

**IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH *******

¶3

CRM-M-43225-2025 Date of Decision: 09.09.2025

DEEPAK KUMAR

….PETITIONER

Versus.

STATE OF HARYANA

….RESPONDENT

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE AARADHNA SAWHNEY

¶12

Present: - Mr.K.S. Godara, Advocate, for the petitioner. ******* AARADHNA SAWHNEY, J. (ORAL)**

¶13

Petitioner, an accused, in case FIR No.147 dated 27.06.2020 registered against him for commission of offence punishable under Section 22(c)/61/85 of the NDPS Act, at Police Station Kalan Wali, District Sirsa, has filed this second petition for grant of bail.

¶14

learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner has been falsely implicated, only on the basis of disclosure statement of co-accused Manpreet Singh @ Babli, who was caught keeping in his possession 800 tablets of Tramadol Hydrochloride. The said co-accused Manpreet Singh @ Bali falsely named the petitioner as the supplier of the contraband. Taking his submissions further, learned counsel contends that petitioner, who has been in custody since 14.07.2000, deserves a lenient view to be taken in his favour as completion of trial is likely to take some time and his further incarceration would not serve any useful purpose.

¶15

Per contra, learned State counsel opposed the request for grant of bail on the following grounds: -

¶16

(i) Learned State counsel submits that petitioner is a habitual offender, he had supplied huge quantity of contraband (which falls

¶17

Page 1 of 2

¶18

VIVEK PAHWA 2025.09.12 17:12 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh

¶19

CRM-M-43225-2025

¶20

within the commercial quantity) to co-accused Manpreet Singh @ Bali, who was caught red handed.

¶21

(ii) The past antecedents of the petitioner are far from satisfactory; he being involved in three criminal cases of like nature.

¶22

(iii) Learned counsel submits that in view of the report of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sirsa, as per which all the prosecution witnesses have been examined and the case has been adjourned to 12.09.2025 for recording statement of accused under Section 313 CrPC. In all probability, the case would be disposed of in the near future.

¶23

Heard.

¶24

Learned counsel for the petitioner, at this stage, submits that direction be issued to the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sirsa to expeditiously dispose of the trial.

¶25

In view of the request made, petition is disposed of directing the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sirsa, to make all possible efforts to dispose of the trial within a period of three weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.

¶26

(AARADHNA SAWHNEY) 09.09.2025 JUDGE Vivek Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes Whether reportable : No

¶27

VIVEK PAHWA 2025.09.12 17:12 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh

¶28

Page 2 of 2

Deepak Kumar v. State of Haryana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Deepak Kumar 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

Krishan Lal Vs Naman

Inder Singh Vs Gurdev Singh

Parveen Kumar Vs Rajinder Kumar

Gulab and Another Vs Ut of Chandigarh and Others

Pritpal Singh Vs State of Punjab

Lakhwinder Singh Vs State of Punjab and Another