Allowed¶8

Deepak v. State of Haryana

Punjab & Haryana HC17 Apr 2026CRM-M/19159/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Regular bail; Section 483 BNSS; NDPS Act Section 20(C) with Sections 29/61/85; FIR No.157 dated 04.07.2025, PS Mundkati, District Palwal, Haryana; 21 kg 740 grams Ganja recovered from car boot; commercial quantity alleged by State; petitioner not apprehended at spot and no recovery from him; parity with co-accused Tara Chand granted bail vide order dated 16.02.2026 in CRM-M-66724-2025; custody over 9 months; trial to take time; bail is rule, jail an exception; petition allowed; no opinion on merits; High Court of Punjab and Haryana; Subhas Mehla, J.; decided 17.04.2026.

What did the court decide?

Release on regular bail on furnishing requisite bonds to the satisfaction of the trial Court/Duty Magistrate/Chief Judicial Magistrate concerned. ¶8

Deepak Vs State of Haryana — Narcotics (NDPS) | Punjab & Haryana HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Release on regular bail on furnishing requisite bonds to the satisfaction of the trial Court/Duty Magistrate/Chief Judicial Magistrate concerned.

¶8

Issue for consideration

Whether the petitioner, arraigned in FIR No.157 dated 04.07.2025 under Section 20(C) of the NDPS Act, 1985 (Sections 29/61/85 added later) with alleged commercial quantity of Ganja, is entitled to regular bail under Section 483 BNSS, particularly in view of parity with co-accused Tara Chand (already granted bail), absence of any recovery from the petitioner, prolonged custody and the time the trial would take.

¶1

Court's answer

The petitioner was not apprehended at the spot and nothing was recovered from him; co-accused Tara Chand, whose case is on similar footing, had already been granted regular bail by a Coordinate Bench of this Court; the petitioner had been in custody for more than nine months and the trial would take sufficient time to conclude.

¶7

Ratio / Principle

No fruitful purpose would be served by keeping the petitioner in custody any further; bail cannot be denied merely as a measure of punishment since culpability is to be decided by the trial court on appreciation of evidence; bail is rule and jail is an exception, and the Court deemed it a fit case for regular bail.

¶7

Key takeaways

Without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the petition is allowed and the petitioner is ordered to be released on regular bail on furnishing requisite bonds to the satisfaction of the trial Court/Duty Magistrate/Chief Judicial Magistrate concerned.ratio¶8
Nothing observed in the judgment shall be construed as an opinion on the merits of the main case.obiter¶9

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Punjab and Haryana High Court grants regular bail under Section 483 BNSS to the petitioner arraigned in FIR No.157 dated 04.07.2025, Police Station Mundkati, District Palwal, under Section 20(C) NDPS Act, 1985 (Sections 29/61/85 added later): 21 kg 740 grams of Ganja allegedly recovered from the boot of a car occupied by co-accused Sunil and Kali Charan, who were later found innocent and impleaded as witnesses; prosecution alleged the petitioner and co-accused Tara Chand conspired to falsely implicate them and that the contraband was of commercial quantity. The petitioner was not apprehended at the spot and nothing was recovered from him; co-accused Tara Chand had already been granted regular bail by a Coordinate Bench (order dated 16.02.2026 in CRM-M-66724-2025) and the petitioner's case was held to be on similar footing; custody exceeded nine months and the trial would take sufficient time; bail cannot be denied as a measure of punishment — bail is rule, jail an exception. Bail granted without expression of opinion on merits.

¶1

CRM-M-19159-2026 (O&M) -1-

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶3

210

¶4

CRM-M-19159-2026 (O&M) Decided on: 17.04.2026

DEEPAK

…...Petitioner

Versus

STATE OF HARYANA

…...Respondent

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUBHAS MEHLA

¶11

Present: Mr. Ravi Malik, Advocate for the petitioner.

¶12

¶13

SUBHAS MEHLA, J. (Oral)

¶14

The present petition has been filed under Section 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023 seeking grant of regular bail in case bearing FIR No.157 dated 04.07.2025 under Section 20(C) of NDPS Act, 1985 (Sections 29/61/85 of NDPS Act, added later on), registered at Police Station Mundkati, District Palwal, Haryana.

¶15

Brief facts of the case are that on 03.07.2025, on receipt of secret information, police party apprehended co-accused namely, Sunil and Kali Charan sitting in a Car. On search of the vehicle, in the boot two bags weighing 21 kg 740 grams in total containing Ganja were recovered. During investigation, the co-accused namely Kali Charan & Sunil were found innocent and were later on , impleaded as witnesses in the present case. During investigation, co-accused Tara Chand and Deepak (the present petitioner) were arrested.

¶16

SONIA PURI 2026.04.20 18:37 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶17

CRM-M-19159-2026 (O&M) -2-

¶18

Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case on the basis of a concocted story; the main accused from whom the alleged contraband was recovered, has been let off, and the present petitioner alongwith coaccused namely Tara Chand was involved in the present case on allegations that they intended to implicate Kali Charan and Sunil in a case of NDPS Act as, it is alleged that Tara Chand has a land dispute with Kali Charan. It is further alleged that co-accused Tara Chand has been granted the concession of regular bail by a Coordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 16.02.2026 passed in CRM-M-66724-2025; the case of the present petitioner is on a better footing than that of co-accused Tara Chand who has already been granted the concession of regular bail; nothing has been recovered from the possession of the petitioner except the version put forward by the persons apprehended with the contraband which can be tested during the trial when they are subjected to cross examination; the petitioner is having clean & clear antecedents, no fruitful purpose would be served by keeping the petitioner behind the bars any further; trial will take sufficient time to conclude; the petitioner is stated to have been in custody since 14.07.2025 and as such, prays for grant of concession of regular bail to the petitioner.

¶19

Notice of motion.

¶20

Mr. Surender Singh Pannu, Addl. A.G., Haryana, who is present in Court, accepted notice on behalf of respondent-State, and by way of filing of custody certificate dated 16.04.2026, opposed the

¶21

SONIA PURI 2026.04.20 18:37 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶22

CRM-M-19159-2026 (O&M) -3-

¶23

concession of regular bail to the petitioner and submitted that the present petitioner alongwith co-accused hatched a conspiracy to implicate Kali Charan and Sunil under NDPS Act and for that purpose, they purchased Ganja and hired a car from where the alleged contraband was recovered and the quantity of said contraband falls under the category of commercial quantity. He, however, fairly admits that the petitioner is not involved in any criminal activity; the petitioner is in custody for a period of 09 months & 03 days.

¶24

Heard.

¶25

Taking into consideration the facts & circumstances of the present case and the contentions raised by learned counsel for the parties, it is an admitted fact that the contraband was recovered from the car and the present petitioner was not present at the spot and two persons namely Kali Charan & Sunil were present in the car; it is a case of the prosecution that the present petitioner alongwith co-accused made a plan to implicate the persons who were apprehended in this false case; the present petitioner was not apprehended at the spot and nothing has been recovered from him; the co-accused namely Tara Chand has already been granted the concession of regular bail by a Coordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 16.02.2026 passed in CRM-M-66724-202; the case of the present petitioner is on similar footing; the present petitioner is in custody for the last more than 09 months; trial will take sufficient time to conclude and no fruitful purpose would be served by keeping him in custody for any further period, as concession of bail cannot be denied

¶26

SONIA PURI 2026.04.20 18:37 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶27

CRM-M-19159-2026 (O&M) -4-

¶28

just as a measure of punishment as culpability is to be decided by trial Court after appreciating evidence adduced by the parties, and it is a trite principle of criminal jurisprudence that bail is rule, jail is an exception, this Court deems it a fit case to grant the concession of regular bail to the

¶29

petitioner.

¶30

Therefore, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the instant petition is allowed . The petitioner is ordered to be released on regular bail on his furnishing requisite bonds to the satisfaction of the trial Court/Duty Magistrate/Chief Judicial Magistrate concerned.

¶31

Nothing observed herein shall be construed as an opinion on

¶32

the merits of the main case.

¶33

(SUBHAS MEHLA) JUDGE

¶34

17.04.2026 Sonia Puri

¶35

Whether Speaking/Reasoned: YES/NO Whether Reportable: YES/NO

¶36

SONIA PURI 2026.04.20 18:37 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

Deepak v. State of Haryana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Deepak 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

Raju and Another Vs State of U.T. Chandigarh & Anr.

Kuldeep Alias Mahri Vs State of Haryana

Harjit Singh Vs Mohan Ram

Ramandeep Kaur Vs State of Punjab

Kapil Rana Vs Hdfc Bank Ltd. and Another

Kapil Kumar Vs State of Punjab