Allowed

Sanjit Alias Monu v. State of Haryana

Punjab & Haryana HC14 May 2026CRM-M/14475/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Regular bail under Section 483 BNSS in an NDPS ganja recovery case. Petitioner implicated only through a co-accused's disclosure statement, with nothing recovered from him; custody exceeded one year and none of 22 prosecution witnesses examined. Bail granted without opinion on merits.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner released on regular bail on furnishing bail/surety bonds to the satisfaction of the trial Court/Duty Magistrate.

Sanjit Alias Monu Vs State of Haryana — Narcotics (NDPS) | Punjab & Haryana HC (2026)

¶1

CRM-M-14475-2026

¶2

-1-

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

210

¶5

CRM-M-14475-2026 Date of Decision: 14.05.2026

¶6

SANJIT ALIAS MONU

¶7

... PETITIONER

¶8

VERSUS

¶9

STATE OF HARYANA ... RESPONDENT

¶10

CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.S.GREWAL

¶11

Present:Mr. Raman Chawla, Advocate for the petitioner.

¶12

H.S. Grewal, J.(Oral)

¶13

This petition has been filed under section 483 B.N.S.S. (earlier 439 Cr.P.C.) for grant of regular bail in case FIR No. 190 dated 14.05.2024 under Sections 20(b)(ii)C, 20(B), 29/61/85 of NDPS Act registered at Police Station- Narnaund Police District Hansi, Hisar.

¶14

The case of the prosecution is that co-accused Sandeep was found in possession of 20.880 kilograms of Ganja concealed in a plastic bag in a car bearing registration No. HR-21N-3117. During investigation, disclosure statement of the co-accused was recorded, wherein it was disclosed that the petitioner had supplied the contraband to co-accused Pawan, who had further supplied the same to him.

¶15

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has not been named in the FIR and has been nominated solely on the basis of the disclosure statement of co-accused, which is not admissible in evidence against

¶16

RENU RAWAT 2026.05.14 17.08 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh

¶17

CRM-M-14475-2026

¶18

-2-

¶19

him. He further submits that nothing has been recovered from the possession of the petitioner. It is further submitted that the petitioner is in custody since 15.03.2025 and prays for grant of regular bail.

¶20

Notice of motion.

¶21

Ms. Malvika Singh, DAG, Haryana, accepts notice on behalf of the respondent–State and has vehemently opposed the prayer for grant of regular bail on the ground that the allegations against the petitioner are serious in nature. She has filed the custody certificate of the petitioner in Court today, which is taken on record. As per the custody certificate, the petitioner has been in custody for the last 01 years 01 month and 06 days. She further submits that out of 22 cited prosecution witnesses none has been examined so far.

¶22

I have heard the submissions made by the parties and gone through the record.

¶23

After hearing the rival contentions and considering the fact that in the case in hand, the petitioner is in custody for the last 01 years 01 month and 06 days; out of 22 cited prosecution witnesses none has been examined so far; apart from the disclosure statement, there is no other substantive evidence to connect the petitioner with the recovery effected from the co-accused and coupled with the fact that the trial is likely to take considerable time, this Court is of the view that no useful purpose would be served by further incarceration of the petitioner. Accordingly, the petitioner is granted the concession of regular bail during the pendency of the trial.

¶24

Therefore, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the instant petition is allowed. The petitioner is ordered to be released on

¶25

RENU RAWAT 2026.05.14 17.08 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh

¶26

CRM-M-14475-2026

¶27

-3-

¶28

regular bail on his furnishing requisite bail/surety bonds to the satisfaction of the trial Court/Duty Magistrate concerned.

¶29

Nothing discussed hereinabove shall be construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case.

¶30

It is clarified that if while on bail so granted through the instant order, the petitioner is found indulged in any other criminal case/activity, it shall be open to the State to seek cancellation of his bail.

¶31

14.05.2026		(H.S.GREWAL)
renu		JUDGE
	Whether speaking/reasoned	: Yes/No
	Whether reportable:	Yes/No

¶32

RENU RAWAT 2026.05.14 17.08 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh

Sanjit Alias Monu v. State of Haryana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sanjit Alias Monu v. State of Haryana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Raj Kumar Vs State of Punjab

Suraj Gill Vs State of Punjab

Arthdeep Singh Alias Deep Vs State of Punjab

Ramandeep Kaur and Anr. Vs State of Punjab and Ors.

Jaskaur Singh Vs State of Punjab

Shahdeen @ Shahiya Vs State of Punjab