Shubham Tiwari Vs State of Haryana

This petition for bail is the second petition, filed by the petitioner under Section 483 of ‘the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023’. It has been filed with regard to a case arising out of FIR No.601 dated 21.07.2024, for the commission of offence punishable under Sections 20, 27A and 29 of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, hereinafter being referred to as ‘NDPS Act’, Police Station Sector-58, District Faridabad. The first petition for bail, filed by the petitioner, was dismissed as withdrawn, vide order dated 09.12.2025.

¶17

GAURAV THAKUR 2026.07.28 10:13 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶18

CRM-M-8918-2026 (O&M)

¶19

2

¶20

The abovementioned FIR came into being at the instance of ‘SI Kaptan’ (Crime Branch DLF Faridabad). It was reported by the abovenamed police officer that on the basis of tip-off, given by a reliable source, after completing usual formalities, a raid was conducted at the residence of ‘Narendra Shah’ and from his residence, 195.810 kg of ganja was recovered.

¶21

It is the case of the prosecution that pursuant to recovery of abovementioned contraband, necessary formalities with regard to seizure & sealing of contraband and formal arrest of the accused were completed, and further investigation taken up.

¶22

With regard to the role of petitioner, it has been alleged by the prosecution that the recovery had taken place from the residence of coaccused ‘Narendra Shah’, and that during the course of investigation, he had disclosed that the contraband was supplied to him by ‘Dharmender Upadhaya’. According to prosecution, ‘Dharmender Upadhaya’ is still at large, and that the petitioner had given his own SIM card to above-named ‘Dharmender Upadhaya’, for use in the mobile phone.

¶23

Heard.

¶24

It has been contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is innocent, who has been implicated in the present case, without any role, direct or indirect, in the trading of contraband. According to learned counsel for the petitioner, simply because a SIM card issued in the name of petitioner was used by the co-accused, the petitioner is being subjected to present prosecution. It has also been contended by learned

¶25

GAURAV THAKUR 2026.07.28 10:13 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶26

CRM-M-8918-2026 (O&M)

¶27

3

¶28

counsel for the petitioner that in the present case, co-accused ‘Jahid’ has already been accorded the benefit of bail by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, whereas the co-accused, namely ‘Happy Singh, Sanjay’ and ‘Bijender’, have been enlarged on bail by this Court. It has also been contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that the prime accused, from whose possession recovery took place, has already been accorded the benefit of bail by the learned trial Court.

¶29

The learned State Counsel has controverted the

¶30

abovementioned arguments. According to learned State Counsel, the petitioner was the person, whose SIM card was used by the co-accused ‘Dharmender Upadhaya’ for booking hotel rooms etc., and that there is direct involvement of petitioner in the commission of crime.

¶31

9. The record has been perused carefully.

¶32

A perusal of record shows that in the present case, following are

¶33

the relevant factors which are required to be taken into consideration for a

¶34

decision: -

¶35

i) that the petitioner is already in custody for a period of more than ten months and thirteen days;

¶36

ii) that the petitioner has clean antecedents;

¶37

iii) that no narcotic substance has been recovered from the possession of petitioner;

¶38

iv) that there is no allegation against the petitioner that he was involved in the trading of contraband either as a supplier or as a receiver of the contraband;

¶39

GAURAV THAKUR 2026.07.28 10:13 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶40

CRM-M-8918-2026 (O&M)

¶41

4

¶42

v) that the prime accused, from whose possession recovery had taken place, namely ‘Narendra Shah’, and other co-accused have already been accorded the benefit of bail, in this case;

¶43

vi) that nothing has been left to be recovered from the possession of petitioner;

¶44

vii) that the trial is not likely to be concluded in near future;

¶45

viii) that the detention of the petitioner in judicial lockup is not likely to serve any purpose;

¶46

ix) that there is nothing on record to show that if released on bail, the petitioner may tamper with the evidence or influence the witnesses; and

¶47

x) that there is nothing on record to show that if released on bail, the petitioner will not participate/cooperate in the trial.

¶48

In the present case, the principles of law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of “Dataram versus State of Uttar Pradesh and another”, 2018(2) R.C.R. (Criminal) 131, are also relevant, wherein it has been observed that “a fundamental postulate of criminal jurisprudence is the presumption of innocence, meaning thereby that a person is believed to be innocent until found guilty. However, there are instances in our criminal law where a reverse onus has been placed on an accused with regard to some specific offences but that is another matter and does not detract from the fundamental postulate in respect of other offences. Yet another important facet of our criminal jurisprudence is that the grant of bail is the general rule and putting a person in jail or in a prison or in a correction home (whichever expression one may wish to use) is an exception. Unfortunately, some of these basic principles appear to have been

¶49

GAURAV THAKUR 2026.07.28 10:13 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶50

CRM-M-8918-2026 (O&M)

¶51

5

¶52

lost sight of with the result that more and more persons are being incarcerated and for longer periods. This does not do any good to our criminal jurisprudence or to our society. There is no doubt that the grant or denial of bail is entirely the discretion of the judge considering a case but even so, the exercise of judicial discretion has been circumscribed by a large number of decisions rendered by this Court and by every High Court in the country. Yet, occasionally there is a necessity to introspect whether denying bail to an accused person is the right thing to do on the facts and in the circumstances of a case”.

¶53

The principles laid down by the Hon’ble the Supreme Court of India in the case of ‘Satender Kumar Antil Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and Another’, (2022) 10 SCC 51, are also relevant in this case. In the abovementioned case, it has been observed that “the rate of conviction in criminal cases in India is abysmally low. It appears to us that this factor weighs on the mind of the Court while deciding the bail applications in a negative sense. Courts tend to think that the possibility of a conviction being nearer to rarity, bail applications will have to be decided strictly, contrary to legal principles. We cannot mix up consideration of a bail application, which is not punitive in nature with that of a possible adjudication by way of trial. On the contrary, an ultimate acquittal with continued custody would be a case of grave injustice”.

¶54

Recently, in the case of ‘Tapas Kumar Palit Vs. State of Chhattisgarh’, 2025 SCC Online SC 322, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India has observed that “if an accused is to get a final verdict after

¶55

GAURAV THAKUR 2026.07.28 10:13 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶56

CRM-M-8918-2026 (O&M)

¶57

6

¶58

incarceration of six to seven years in jail as an undertrial prisoner, then, definitely, it could be said that his right to have a speedy trial under Article 21 of the Constitution has been infringed”. It has also been observed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the abovementioned case that “delays are bad for the accused and extremely bad for the victims, for Indian society and for the credibility of our justice system, which is valued. Judges are the masters of their Courtrooms and the Criminal Procedure Code provides many tools for the Judges to use in order to ensure that cases proceed efficiently”.

¶59

To elucidate further, this Court is conscious of the basic and fundamental principle of law that right to speedy trial is a part of reasonable, fair and just procedure enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. This constitutional right cannot be denied to the accused as mandated by Hon’ble Apex court in “ Balwinder Singh versus State of Punjab and Another”, 2024 SCC Online SC 4354.

¶60

If the cumulative effect of all the abovementioned factors, involved in the instant case, is taken into consideration, it leads to a conclusion that the petitioner is entitled to the benefit of bail, and that the present petition deserves to be allowed.

¶61

Accordingly, without commenting anything on the merits of the case, the present petition is hereby allowed . The petitioner is hereby ordered to be released on bail on furnishing personal bond and surety bond(s) to the satisfaction of learned trial Court. However the abovementioned concession shall be subject to following conditions:-

¶62

GAURAV THAKUR 2026.07.28 10:13 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶63

CRM-M-8918-2026 (O&M)

¶64

7

¶65

(i) that the petitioner shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case, so as to dissuade him to disclose such facts to the Court or to any other authority;

¶66

(ii) that the petitioner shall at the time of execution of bond, furnish the address to the Court concerned and shall notify the change in address to the trial Court, till the final decision of the trial; and

¶67

(iii) that the petitioner shall not leave India without prior permission of the trial Court.

¶68

(SURYA PARTAP SINGH) JUDGE

¶69

27.07.2026 Gaurav Thakur

¶70

Whether speaking / reasoned Yes/No Whether Reportable Yes/No

¶71

GAURAV THAKUR 2026.07.28 10:13 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

Shubham Tiwari v. State of Haryana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shubham Tiwari 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

Ashok Vs State of Haryana

Ravinder Singh Vs State of Haryana and Others

Rakesh Gupta Vs Director General of Police

Dn Taneja Vs State of Haryana and Anr.

Ravinder Taneja Vs State of Haryana and Anr.

Isha Alias Gupreet Kaur Vs State of Punjab