Abdur Rab Khan @ Saim Vs State of Haryana

Th i s is the first petition filed u n der Section 483 of the Bhara t iya Nagarik Suraks h a Sanhita, 2023 for the grant of regular bail to the petitione r in case FIR No. 18 dated 07.02.2026, registered u nder Sections 21-B, 61, 85 of the NDPS Act at P o lice Station City Nuh, District N uh, Haryana.

¶16

Br i efly stated, as per the pros e cution case, on 06.02.2026, the petitioner along with co-accused Shakil Ahmed and Rahis was apprehended, a n d 5 grams of MDM A was allegedly recovered from the petitioner, whereas 11 gram s of smack (cheeta) was recovered from the co-a c cused in the presence of a D uty Magistrate. Th e reafter, the present FIR was r e gistered and the accused persons were arrested. D uring investigation, they are stated to have suffered disclo s ure statements.

¶17

TRIPTI SAINI 2026.03.25 16:39 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶18

CRM-M-15288-2026 (O&M) -2-

¶19

Le a rned counsel for the petitioner s ubmits that the petitioner has been falsely implica t ed in the present case. It is c o ntended that the alleged reco v ery from the petiti o ner falls within non-commercial quantity. It is further submi t ted that the co-acc u sed has already been granted b a il, the challan has been presen t ed, and the trial i s likely to take considerable t i me to conclude. Learned cou n sel further submits t hat the petitioner is in custody s ince 07.02.2026.

¶20

Pe r contra, learned State counsel o pposes the prayer for grant of b ail and submits tha t the petitioner is involved in an o ther case of similar nature. 5. I have heard learned counsel for t h e parties and perused the mat e rial on record.

¶21

In t he present case, the recovery e ff ected from the petitioner is of n oncommercial q u antity. The petitioner is in custody since 07.02.2026, the investigation st a nds completed and the challa n has already been presented. T he trial is not likely to conclude in the near fut u re. Moreover, the co-accused has already been gr a nted bail.

¶22

As regards the submission o f learned State counsel t hat petitioner is involved in two other cases of sim i lar nature, reference is placed u p on the judgment o f the Hon'ble Supreme Court in ‘ Maulana Mohd. Amir Rashadi Vs. State of U.P. and another’, 2012 (2) SCC 382 i n which, it is held that the facts a nd circumstances o f the present case are to be seen while deciding a bail applica t ion and the bail ap p lication of the petitioner cann o t be rejected solely on the gro u nd that the petitio n er is involved in other/ another cases). The relevant portion of the said judgment i s reproduced hereinbelow:-

¶23

"A s observed by the High Court , merely on the basis of crim i nal an t ecedents, the claim of the second respondent cannot be rejecte d . In

¶24

TRIPTI SAINI 2026.03.25 16:39 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶25

CRM-M-15288-2026 (O&M) -3-

¶26

ot h er words, it is the duty of the Court to find out the role of the ac c used in the case in whi c h he has been charged a nd ot h er circumstances such as po s sibility of fleeing away from the jurisdiction of the Court etc."

¶27

Co n sidering the totality of the fa c ts and circumstances, particul a rly the period of c u stody undergone by the petiti o ner, the nature of allegations, the quantity involv e d, and the stage of the trial, thi s Court is of the considered opi n ion that the petition e r deserves the concession of re g ular bail.

¶28

Co n sequently, the present petiti o n is allowed. The petitione r is ordered to be r eleased on regular bail subjec t to his furnishing bail bonds a nd surety bonds t o the satisfaction of the lea r ned Trial Court/Duty Magist r ate concerned.

¶29

However, it is made clear that a ny observation made hereinab o ve shall not be construed as an expression of opini o n on the merits of the case. 11. Al l pending miscellaneous appli c ation(s), if any, shall also st a nd disposed of.

¶30

March 25, 2026 (MANDEEP PANNU) tripti JUDGE Whethe r speaking/non-speaking : Spea k ing Whethe r reportable : Yes/ N o

¶31

TRIPTI SAINI 2026.03.25 16:39 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

Abdur Rab Khan @ Saim v. State of Haryana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Abdur Rab Khan @ Saim 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

Prabhjeet Kaur Bassan Vs State of Punjab and Others

Sant Kumar Vs State of Haryana

Mujjamil Vs State of Haryana

Vikas Kumar Vs Pawan Kumar and Anr.

Sukhmandar Singh Alias Shinda and Others Vs State of Punjab and Another

Sarwan Singh @ Samma Vs State of Punjab