Allowed¶22

Jony Hans v. State of Haryana

Punjab & Haryana HC3 Jul 2026CRM-M/32450/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Jony Hans v. State of Haryana, CRM-M-32450-2026, High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh, H.S. Grewal J., decided 03.07.2026 - regular bail, Section 483 BNSS / erstwhile Section 439 Cr.P.C, NDPS Act Sections 20(b)(ii)(B) and 29, BNS Section 111(2)(b), FIR No. 205 dated 21.06.2025, Police Station Sector-5 Gurugram, 501 grams charas, implication solely on co-accused Vikram @ Vicky's disclosure statement, no substantive evidence, custody 11 months 10 days, bail granted during pendency of trial.

What did the court decide?

Release on regular bail during the pendency of the trial on furnishing requisite bail bonds and surety bonds to the satisfaction of the trial Court/Duty Magistrate/Chief Judicial Magistrate concerned; liberty reserved to the State to seek cancellation of bail if the petitioner indulges in any other criminal case.

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

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶22

Issue for consideration

Whether the petitioner, implicated solely on the basis of the co-accused's disclosure statement with no recovery effected from him and in custody for 11 months and 10 days amid a trial likely to take considerable time, should be granted regular bail under Section 483 BNSS during the pendency of the trial.

¶21

Court's answer

Having regard to the petitioner's custody of 11 months and 10 days, the absence of any substantive evidence connecting him to the recovery effected from the co-accused apart from the disclosure statement, and the fact that the trial is likely to take considerable time, no useful purpose would be served by further incarceration; the petitioner is granted the concession of regular bail during the pendency of the trial.

¶21

Ratio / Principle

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 his furnishing requisite bail bonds and surety bonds.

¶22

Key takeaways

The bail bonds and surety bonds are to be furnished to the satisfaction of the trial Court/Duty Magistrate/Chief Judicial Magistrate concerned.ratio¶26
If, on the bail granted through this order, the petitioner is found indulging in any other criminal case, it shall be open to the State to seek cancellation of his bail.ratio¶27
Pending applications, if any, stand disposed of.ratio

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Punjab and Haryana High Court (H.S. Grewal, J.) allows a regular-bail petition under Section 483 BNSS (erstwhile Section 439 Cr.P.C) in FIR No. 205 dated 21.06.2025, Police Station Sector-5, Gurugram (Sections 20(b)(ii)(B) and 29 NDPS Act; Section 111(2)(b) BNS). The petitioner was nominated solely on the co-accused's disclosure statement; apart from that statement there was no other substantive evidence connecting him with the recovery of 501 grams of charas from the co-accused. With custody of 11 months and 10 days and the trial likely to take considerable time, the Court held no useful purpose would be served by further incarceration and granted regular bail during the pendency of the trial, without expressing any opinion on merits, on furnishing bail and surety bonds to the satisfaction of the trial Court/Duty Magistrate/Chief Judicial Magistrate; the State may seek cancellation if the petitioner is found in any other criminal case.

¶1

CRM-M-32450-2026

¶2

-1-

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

215 CRM-M-32450-2026 Date of Decision: 03.07.2026

JONY HANS

... PETITIONER

VERSUS

STATE OF HARYANA ... RESPONDENT

¶9

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

¶10

Present:Mr. Harsh Vashistha, Advocate for the petitioner.

¶11

H.S. Grewal, J.(Oral)

¶12

This petition has been filed for grant of regular bail under Section 483 of BNSS (erstwhile Section 439 Cr.P.C) in case FIR No. 205 dated 21.06.2025 under Sections 20(b) (ii) (B), 29 of the NDPS Act and Section 111(2) (b) of BNS registered at Police Station Sector-5, Gurugram, Haryana. 2. The case of the prosecution is that the co-accused, namely Vikram @ Vicky, was apprehended and found to be in conscious possession of 501 grams of charas. During the course of the investigation, the petitioner was nominated as an accused solely on the basis of the disclosure statement made by the said co-accused and was consequently implicated in the present case.

¶13

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been implicated solely on the basis of the disclosure statement made by the co-accused while in police custody, which is inadmissible in evidence. It is further submitted that no recovery has been effected from the conscious possession of the petitioner. It is further contended that the petitioner is in

¶14

RENU RAWAT 2026.07.03 16.03 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh

¶15

CRM-M-32450-2026

¶16

-2-

¶17

custody since 24.07.2025 and prays for the grant of regular bail to the petitioner.

¶18

Notice of motion.

¶19

Mr. Vijay Kumar, AAG, Haryana accepts notice on behalf of the respondent-State and vehemently opposes the prayer made by learned counsel for the petitioner on the ground that the petitioner is a habitual offender and has been involved in other cases. Learned State counsel has filed the custody certificate in Court today, which is taken on record. As per the custody certificate, the petitioner has been in custody for the last 11 months and 10 days.

¶20

I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

¶21

Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the present case and the fact that the petitioner is in custody for the last 11 months and 10 days; that apart from the disclosure statement, there is no other substantive evidence to connect the petitioner with the recovery effected from the co-accused 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.

¶22

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 bail bonds, surety bonds to the

¶23

RENU RAWAT 2026.07.03 16.03 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh

¶24

CRM-M-32450-2026

¶25

-3-

¶26

satisfaction of the trial Court/Duty Magistrate/Chief Judicial Magistrate concerned.

¶27

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

¶28

Pending applications, if any, shall also stand disposed of.

¶29

03.07.2026 (H.S.GREWAL) renu JUDGE

¶30

Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No Whether reportable: Yes/No

¶31

RENU RAWAT 2026.07.03 16.03 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh

Jony Hans v. State of Haryana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jony Hans 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

Saurabh Kumar Vs State of Haryana

Gourav and Another Vs State of Haryana and Another

Sarika Vs State of Punjab

Ranveer Singh Alias Ranbir Bijnoriya and Others Vs State of Haryana and Others

Vishali Alias Robin Alias Mattu Vs State of Punjab

Vijay Alias Bholu Vs State of Haryana