Satyam Sood Vs State of Haryana

Th e instant petition has been filed by the petitioner under Sectio n 483 of Bharatiy a Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 20 2 3 (for short “BNSS”) for gran t of regular bail i n case arising out of FIR No.76 dated 21.03.2025 registere d under Sections 2 (c), 27A, 29 of Narcotic Dru g s and Psychotropic Substance s Act (for short “ N DPS Act”) and Section 308( 2 ) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita , 2023 (for short “ BNS”) at Police Station Parao, D istrict Ambala.

¶14

As per the allegations, on 21.03. 2 025, the accused-Hira Chawl a was arrested on the basis of a secret informa t ion and 01 Kg of heroin wa s recovered from his conscious possession, whi c h was taken into custody. O n interrogation, ac c used-Hira Chawala suffered a d isclosure statement to the effec t that he had pur c hased the contraband for Lakh a n and had paid a sum of Rs.1 0 lakhs. Recover y of three phones and some m oney was also effected fro m accused-Hira C h awala. Then the accused suffe r ed another disclosure statemen t on 21.03.2025 s aying that on asking of accu s ed Lakhan, he had purchase d

¶15

AMIT SHARMA 2026.05.20 12:35 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment.

¶16

CRM-M-13168-2026 (O&M) 2

¶17

heroin from a N i gerian person. The accused-La k han was nominated as such. H e was arrested on 02.08.2025. He too suffered a d isclosure statement on the basi s of which accus e d-Shivam Sood was nominat e d as such. Shivam Sood wa s arrested on 02.0 8 .2025. He suffered disclosure statement on the basis of whic h the present petit i oner, who is his brother was n ominated as an accused, on th e allegations that t he petitioner was indulged in s a le of heroin from the last man y years and had i n volved him in this business. H e disclosed that the petitione r who was lodge d in Jail in connection with so m e other case had asked him t o meet the accuse d Lakhan who alongwith some Nigerian national was indulge d in the business o f sale of heroin and the petitio n er had asked him to give a su m of Rs.2 lakhs k ept in his house to the co-a c cused Lakhan for purchase o f contraband and t hen to supply it further after re c eipt of the same. The petitione r was nominated a s an accused on the basis of hi s disclosure statement. Since h e was lodged in c ustody his presence was sec u red by issuance of productio n warrants. He j o ined into investigation of thi s case on 10.09.2025 and wa s formally arrested. During interrogation, he s uffered a disclosure statemen t admitting his c o mplicity in large-scale heroin t r afficking. He further disclose d that he was the kingpin of the drug supply n e twork operating in the area o f Ambala, had dir e ct nexus with the Nigerian dru g supplier, and had instructed hi s brother, Shivam Sood, to continue the business o f contraband during his absenc e while he was i n custody. Investigation qua t h e petitioner and the other si x accused, who w e re arrested in the present case, n ow stands concluded.

¶18

It i s argued by learned counsel fo r the petitioner that he has bee n falsely implicat e d in this case on the basis of disclosure statement of the co -

¶19

AMIT SHARMA 2026.05.20 12:35 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment.

¶20

CRM-M-13168-2026 (O&M) 3

¶21

accused which c annot be considered to be adm i ssible in evidence. At the tim e of alleged occur r ence, he was behind bars in c o nnection with some other case . In fact, he had b een illegally arrested in that c a se. His complicity in this cas e has not been est a blished at all. He is in prolon g ed incarceration. The trial wil l take considerab l e time to conclude. No usef u l purpose would be served b y detaining him i n custody anymore. He cann o t be denied benefit of bail o n account of his i n volvement in other cases. It i s, thus, argued that the petitio n deserves to be allowed.

¶22

Per contra, learned State counsel has argued that the allegation s against the petitioner are quite serious in nature. He is a habitual offender bein g involved in as m any as 10 cases out of whic h 06 cases have been registere d under the provis i ons of NDPS Act. There are c h ances of his committing simila r offences, if ext e nded benefit of bail. The bail petition of co-accused Lakha n Kumar has been dismissed by this Court on 15. 0 5.2026. The allegations agains t the petitioner a r e even graver and, therefore, he too does not deserve to b e extended such b e nefit. It is he who was the ma s ter-mind of the crime. He use d encrypted appli c ation such as Zangi App and purchase of fake SIM cards t o evade police de t ection by him, has been establ i shed. 04 accused are yet to b e arrested. There are chances of petitioner’s ab s conding, if extended benefit o f bail. It is, there fo re, argued that the petition doe s not deserve to be allowed.

¶23

Thi s Court has heard the rival sub m issions made by learned counse l for the parties at considerable length.

¶24

AMIT SHARMA 2026.05.20 12:35 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment.

¶25

CRM-M-13168-2026 (O&M) 4

¶26

Th e petitioner alongwith the co-a c cused is alleged to have bee n involved in the business of sale/purchase of contraband. He is a habitua l offender being i nvolved in several other case s including the cases under th e provisions of th e NDPS Act. While being in judicial custody in some othe r case, he is alle g ed to have instructed his br o ther Shivam Sood to procur e consignment of c ontraband from a Nigerian citizen Maxwell from Delhi and t o sell the same. A s per the allegations on his in s tructions accused Shivam Soo d had given a su m of Rs.1,40,000/- to the co-acc u sed for the purpose of purchas e of contraband. The allegations prima facie sh o w his active complicity in th e crime. The evid e nce is at its initial stages since n o prosecution witness has bee n examined so fa r . The apprehension that he m ay commit similar offences o r abscond cannot be stated to be unfounded, at this stage. Taking int o consideration hi s antecedents and in view of th e above discussion, this Court i s of the consider e d opinion that the petitioner d o es not deserve to be extende d benefit of bail. A ccordingly, the petition is dis m issed.

¶27

It i s made clear that any observatio n made herein above is only fo r the purpose of d eciding the present petition and the same shall have no bearin g on the merits of t he case.

¶28

Sin c e the main petition has been d i smissed, pending application, i f any, is rendered i nfructuous.

¶29

(MANISHA BATRA) JUDGE

¶30

19.05.2026 Whether speaking/reasoned:- Yes/No Amit Sharma Whether reportable:- Yes/No

¶31

AMIT SHARMA 2026.05.20 12:35 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment.

Satyam Sood v. State of Haryana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Satyam Sood 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

Vikas Choda Vs State of Punjab and Another

Jaspreet Singh @ Jarman Vs State of Punjab

Leela Singh Vs State of Punjab

Manjot Singh Alias Jotta Vs State of Punjab

Gurdeep Singh Vs State of Punjab

Vikram Singh @ Bikram Singh @ Vicky Vs State of Punjab