Allowed

Mustkeen v. State of Haryana

Punjab & Haryana HC20 Apr 2026CRM-M/9515/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Regular bail petition under Section 483 BNSS in an NDPS FIR where recovery was from a co-accused who already got bail, FSL found Diazepam, and no prosecution witness had been examined despite 8 months' custody. Court granted bail subject to conditions.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner released on regular bail subject to furnishing bail/surety bonds to the satisfaction of the trial Court/Duty Magistrate and conditions including no tampering, appearing on all dates, and no

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

¶1

� CRM-M-9515-2026 (O&M) 1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶3

217

¶4

CRM-M-9515-2026 (O&M) Date of decision: 20.04.2026

Mustkeen

....Petitioner

Versus

State of Haryana

...Respondent

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMAN CHAUDHARY

¶11

*********

¶12

Present : Mr. Pankaj Bali, Advocate for the petitioner

¶13

Mr. Gautam Kaile, DAG Haryana

¶14

¶15

AMAN CHAUDHARY, J. (ORAL)

¶16

Prayer in the present petition filed under Section 483 BNSS is for grant of regular bail to the petitioner in case FIR No.183 dated 31.05.2025, registered under Sections 21, 25 & 29 of NDPS Act at Police Station Kunjpura, District Karnal .

¶17

Learned counsel contends that the petitioner has been in custody for more than 9 months. His name surfaced based on the disclosure statement of co-accused Ishtkar, from whom 306 grams of Smack was allegedly recovered, however, in the FSL Report, substance namely Diazepam has been found and the aforesaid co-accused has been granted regular bail by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Karnal vide order dated 07.04.2026. There is nothing to connect the petitioner with the alleged recovery. Challan was presented on 19.11.2025; charges have been framed on 28.11.2025, however, out of 16 prosecution witnesses, none has been examined. The petitioner is not involved in any other case under NDPS Act .

¶18

The custody certificate dated 17.04.2026, filed by the learned State

¶19

MOHIT 2026.04.20 17:43 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶20

� CRM-M-9515-2026 (O&M) 2

¶21

counsel is taken on record. As per the same, the petitioner is behind bars for 8 months and 13 days.

¶22

4 . Learned State counsel opposes the bail on the ground that the petitioner is the supplier and was specifically named by the co-accused, from whom the alleged contraband was recovered. However, he is unable to controvert the submissions with regard to stage, co-accused having been granted bail and the petitioner being not involved in any other case under the NDPS Act.

¶23

Heard.

¶24

6 . �� !�� "#��#$%$&��'��$�#��#$%$&��'�� (��'��!��)����� ��!��'��!�� $��+�� '��#

¶25

The petitioner is ordered to be released on regular bail, subject to furnishing bail/surety bonds to the satisfaction of trial Court/Duty Magistrate concerned, if not required in any other case and shall abide by the following conditions:-

¶26

(i) The petitioner will not tamper with the evidence during the trial.

¶27

(ii) The petitioner will not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witnesses.

¶28

(iii) The petitioner will appear before the trial Court on each and every date fixed, unless is exempted by a specific order of Court.

¶29

(iv) The petitioner shall not commit an offence similar to

¶30

MOHIT 2026.04.20 17:43 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶31

� CRM-M-9515-2026 (O&M) 3

¶32

the offence of which, he is an accused, or for commission of which he is suspected of.

¶33

(v) The petitioner shall not directly or indirectly coerce, induce, threaten or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him/ her from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence in any manner.

¶34

(vi) The petitioner shall not in any manner misuse his liberty.

¶35

(vii) The petitioner shall furnish his address and mobile number by way of an affidavit to the trial Court and not change the same till conclusion of trial and if for any reasons, he seeks to change either of the aforesaid, it shall be done only with prior information to the learned trial Court.

¶36

(viii) The petitioner shall not leave the country without prior permission of the trial Court.

¶37

(ix) The trial Court/Duty Magistrate may impose any other condition, as deemed appropriate while releasing the petitioner.

¶38

It is made abundantly clear that in case there is any breach of the aforesaid conditions, the State shall be at liberty to seek cancellation of bail as granted to the petitioner by this order.

¶39

In view of the above, it is clarified that the observations made herein above are limited for the purpose of present proceedings and would not be construed as any opinion on the merits of the case and the trial would proceed independently of the aforesaid observations.

¶40

(AMAN CHAUDHARY) JUDGE

¶41

20.04.2026 M.Kamra
Whether speaking/reasoned	: Yes / No
Whether reportable	: Yes / No

¶42

MOHIT 2026.04.20 17:43 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

Mustkeen v. State of Haryana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mustkeen v. State of Haryana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Semwati and Anr. Vs State of Haryana and Ors.

Anjali and Anr. Vs State of Punjab and Ors.

Gurmeet Singh and Others Vs State of Punjab

Yatinder Kumar Chhokar Vs State of Haryana and Others

Boor Singh Vs State of Punjab and Anr.

Shamsher Singh Alias Sher Singh Alias Shera Vs State of Punjab