Dismissed¶24

Manish v. State of Haryana

Punjab & Haryana HC1 May 2026CRM-M/8883/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Punjab & Haryana High Court, Chandigarh; CRM-M-8883-2026 (O&M); decision 01.05.2026; Justice Subhas Mehla; anticipatory bail refused/dismissed; Section 482 BNSS 2023 (Section 438 CrPC equivalent); FIR No.15 dated 19.01.2026; Sections 15-C NDPS Act; Police Station Sadar Narwana; District Jind; Haryana; petitioner Manish; poppy husk 276.100 kg commercial quantity; ownership of fields confirmed by Halka Patwari report; habitual offender; three other NDPS cases; already in custody; production warrants 02.05.2026; disclosure statement of co-accused inadmissible claim; advocates Parminder Singh Sekhon (Senior Advocate), Sweedel Goyal, Gurinder Singth Khattra for petitioner; Satbir Singh Goripuria, DAG Haryana for State.

What did the court decide?

After considering rival submissions and the facts and circumstances, the Court finds no merit in the petition.

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

¶1

In the High Court for the States of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh

¶2

105

¶3

CRM-M-8883-2026 (O&M) Date of Decision:- 01.05.2026

¶4

Manish … Petitioner

¶5

VERSUS

¶6

State of Haryana ... Respondent

¶7

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUBHAS MEHLA

¶8

Present:Mr. Parminder Singh Sekhon, Senior Advocate with Ms. Sweedel Goyal, Advocate and Mr. Gurinder Singth Khattra, Advocate, for the petitioner.

¶9

Mr. Satbir Singh Goripuria, DAG, Haryana. *****

¶10

SUBHAS MEHLA, J . (Oral)

¶11

The instant petition under Section 482 of BNSS, 2023 (438 of Cr.P.C.), has been filed for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner in case bearing FIR No.15 dated 19.01.2026, registered under Sections 15-C of NDPS Act, at Police Station Sadar Narwana, District Jind.

¶12

Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case on the basis of disclosure statement of a co-accused, which is inadmissible in evidence. It is further submitted that the petitioner is not the owner of the fields from where the alleged contraband was recovered and that nothing has been recovered from his conscious possession. On these grounds, prayer has been made for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

¶13

Notice of motion.

¶14

GEETA RANI 2026.05.04 18:47 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment Punjab & Haryana High Court at Chandigarh

¶15

CRM-M-8883-2026 (O&M)

¶16

( 2 )

¶17

Mr. Satbir Singh Goripuria, DAG, Haryana, accepted notice on behalf of respondent-State and opposed the prayer made by learned counsel for the petitioner by submitting that the petitioner is, in fact, the owner of the fields from where the contraband was recovered and that the investigating agency has obtained a report from the Halka Patwari confirming his ownership. It is contended that the petitioner is a habitual offender and is involved in three other cases under NDPS Act. He further contended that the petitioner is already in custody in another case and that his production warrants in the present case have been issued for 02.05.2026.

¶18

Heard.

¶19

After considering the rival submissions of learned counsel for the parties and the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court finds no merit in the present petition on the following aspects:

¶20

(i) Large quantity of contraband recovered i.e. 276.100 kilograms of Poppy husk, which falls under commercial quantity;

¶21

(ii) As submitted by learned State counsel, the petitioner is the owner of the fields from where the contraband was recovered;

¶22

(iii) He is a habitual offender and is involved in three other cases under NDPS Act.

¶23

(iv) He is already in custody in another case and that his production warrants in the present case have been issued for 02.05.2026.

¶24

In view of the above, the present petition for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner is dismissed.

¶25

( SUBHAS MEHLA ) 01.05.2026 JUDGE Geeta Whether speaking /reasoned Yes / No Whether Reportable Yes / No

¶26

GEETA RANI 2026.05.04 18:47 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment Punjab & Haryana High Court at Chandigarh

Manish v. State of Haryana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Manish 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

Malkeet Singh Alias Lovepreet Vs State of Punjab

Bhupinder Singh Vs State of Punjab

Nanak Chand Alias Nannu Vs State of Punjab

Prateek Vs State of Haryana and Anr.

Prateek and Others Vs State of Haryana and Others

Loveyansh Chowdhary Alias Lovyansh Chowdhry Vs State of Haryana