1

SYNOPSIS

1. That the FIR no. 195 dated 08.09.2023 has been

registered on the basis of statement of the ASI

Sandeep Singh No. 109 in which Petitioner has falsely

been implicated. However, he is absolutely innocent

not committed such type of offence as alleged

against him in the above stated F.I.R.

2. That the petitioner is not named in the FIR and no

overt role is attributed to him. That the petitioner is

also not named in the secret information. That the

co-accused namely Sachin @ Abhishek was arrested

from the spot and recovery was effected from him.

Sachin @ Abhishek disclosure statement was

recorded. As per the disclosure statement of the co-

accused/ Sachin @ Abhishek involvement of the

petitioner was revealed in the present case i.e.

narcotic substances was supplied by the petitioner -

accused. Consequently, the present case got

registered against the petitioner.

3. That the petitioner was arrested by the police on

08.09.2023 by the Police of P.S. Raipur Rani,

Panchkula from the house of petitioner and was

produced before the Hon’ble Illaqua Magistrate

 2

Panchkula and since then the petitioner is behind the

bars.

4. That the petitioner moved an application for regular

bail before the learned Additional Session Judge,

Panchkula, which was declined on 29.05.2024

without assigning good reason.

5. That the Challan presented on 05.03.2024 and

charges have been framed on 08.05.2024 by Ld

District and Sessions Judge Panchkula.

PLACE: PANCHKULA
DATED: 03.06.2024.

THROUGH COUNSEL

(ROHIT CHANDEL)(ANIL KUMAR CHAUHAN)

(VIRESH DAHIYA)(VICKY CHAUHAN)

ADVOCATES
COUNSEL FOR THE PETITIONER
 3

IN THE COURT OF HIGH COURT PUNJAB AND

HARYANA HIGH COURT AT CHANDIGARH

CRM-M NO.______OF 2024

FIR No. 195, Dated 08.09.2023
U/s: 22C,29 NDPS ACT
P.S. Raipuar Rani, Panchkula

MEMO OF PARTIES

1. Ravi Kumar, aged 36 years Son of Shri Syam Lal,

resident of Village Kakrali, Police Station Raipur Rani,

Tehsil Barwala, District Panchkula, Haryana. Aadhar

Card no. 4466 5536 8114 and Mobile No.

9812216763.

... Petitioner

VERSUS

State of Haryana

...Respondent

PLACE: CHANDIGARH
DATED: 03.06.2024.

THROUGH COUNSEL

(ROHIT CHANDEL)(ANIL KUMAR CHAUHAN)

P/5963/2018

(VIRESH DAHIYA)(VICKY CHAUHAN)

ADVOCATES
COUNSEL FOR THE PETITIONER
 4

Whether any Proclaimed Offender : No

 5

First Regular Bail Application under Section 439

of The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for

grant of regular bail to the Petitioner Ravi Kumar

son Sh. Shyam Lal in case out of in CASE

ARISING out of FIR no. 195, Dated 08.09.2023

Under section 22C, 29 of Narcotic Drugs And

PSYCHOTROPIC SUBSTANCES Act no/ 61 of 1985,

Police Station Raipur Rani, Panchkula.

OR

Any other relief which this Hon’ble Court deems

fit n facts and circumstance of the case may

kindly passed

RESPECTFULLY SHOWETH: -

1. That the petitioner has falsely been implicated in the

present case when fact is that he is absolutely

innocent and has not committed any offence.

2. That the Petitioner is residing at the above given

address. The Petitioner is peaceful and law-abiding

citizen of India.

3. That the FIR no. 195 dated 08.09.2023 has been

registered on the basis of statement of the ASI

Sandeep Singh No. 109. Petitioner has falsely been

implicated in this case while he is absolutely innocent

not committed such type of offence as alleged

 6

against him in the above stated case. Copy of FIR

attached herewith as Annexure P-1.

4. That in brief as per prosecution version, on

08.09.2023, complainant ASI Sandeep Kumar along

with other police officials was present near Durga

Seed Farm at Mauli Chajju Majra Road at about 03:30

PM and at that time a secret informer informed him

that Sachin @ Abhishek/co-accused s/o Sanjeev

Kumar @ Sanju R/o Village Kakrali, P.S. Raipur Rani,

Panchkula) running a grocery shop at Kakrali Adda

and from where he used to sell “Nashile Capsule” i.e.

narcotic substance and if the raid be conducted he

can be apprehended along with narcotic substance.

The secret informer after providing aforementioned

information also provided the description about the

look and appearance of and accused left from there.

The complainant believing information as the

completed correct, statutory obligation as provided

under the NDPS Act and thereafter formed the raiding

party. The raiding party reached at bus stop, Kakrali

and tried to join person from public as independent

witness but all of them took excuse either one or

another pretext. The raid was conducted. In the shop

one boy found seating on a chair having a carry bag

 7

of yellow color in his hand. The boy controlled by the

police officials and on query the boy disclosed his

name Sachin @ Abhishek s/o Sanjeev Kumar. Further

mandate of Section 50 NDPS Act was completed. The

co-accused opted to get search himself, the carry bag

as well his shop in presence of Gazetted Officer. The

Duty Magistrate Sh. Arun Kumar Excise Taxation

Officer, Panchkula was contacted and called. The

Duty Magistrate reached to the spot at about 06:00

PM. The police official forming raiding team was firstly

searched but nothing except for daily routine articles

could be recovered from their possession. Thereafter,

Duty Magistrate gave instructions. For conducting

search. The recovery of 600 DICYCLOMINE

HYDROCHLORIDE, TRAMADOL HYDROCHLORIDE &

ACETAMINOPHEN CAPSULES were affected from the

carry bag of co-accused during the search. The

recovered narcotic substance weighed and same was

found as 360 gms. Further, necessary formalities

were completed by the police officials of the raiding

team and in this manner with an allegation that co-

accused was found in his possession 600 capsules of

Tramadol capsules (360 Gms). The case against the

 8

co-accused Sachin @ Abhishek was registered under

Section 220, 29 NDPS Act.

5. That the petitioner is not named in the FIR and no

overt role is attributed to him. That the petitioner is

also not named in the secret information. That the co-

accused namely Sachin @ Abhishek was arrested

from the spot and recovery effected from him. Sachin

@ Abhishek disclosure statement recorded. As per

the disclosure statement of the co-accused/ Sachin @

Abhishek involvement of the petitioner could be

revealed in the present case i.e. narcotic substances

was supplied by the petitioner -accused.

Consequently, the present case registered against

the petitioner.

6. That the petitioner was arrested by the police on

08.09.2023 by the Police of P.S. Raipur Rani,

Panchkula from the house of petitioner and was

produced before the Hon’ble Illaqua Magistrate

Panchkula and since then the petitioner is behind the

bars.

7. That it is further submitted that nothing has been

recovered from the petitioner and the amount as

shown to be recovered by the IO concerned is planted

one. The investigation till date would go to show that

 9

nothing has been fabricated by the petitioner and so

much so that petitioner is not instrumental in any of

the commission of crime as find mentioned in the FIR.

The petitioner has been implicated on the basis of the

disclosure of the Sachin @ Abhishek main accused of

the case otherwise is not admissible law, as held by

Hon’ble Apex Court in catena of judgments such as

Tofan Singh Versus State of Tamil Nadu, 2020

AIR (Supreme Court) 5592, Rakesh Kumar

Singla Versus Union of India, 2021(1) RCR

(Criminal) 704, Surinder Kumar Khanna Versus

Intelligence Officer Directorate of Revenue

Intelligence, 2018(3) RCR (Criminal) 954, State

by (NCB) Bengaluru Versus Pallulabid Ahmad

Arimutta & Anr. 2022(1) RCR (Criminal) 762,

Sanjeev Chandra Agarwal & Anr. Versus Union

of India 2021(4) RCR (Criminal) 590, Vijay Singh

Versus The State of Haryana, bearing Special

Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No.(s).1266/2023 decided

on 17.05.2023, State of Haryana versus

Samarth Kumar 2022 (3) RCR (Criminal) 991 and

Vikrant Singh Versus State of Punjab, CRM-M-39657-

2020, wherein it has been held that the accused can

be granted the concession of regular bail where he

 10

has been named in the disclosure statement of his

co-accused and there is no other corroborative

evidence against the accused. Keeping petitioner in

judicial custody will serve no purpose in any manner

whatsoever. No string can be attached with the

petitioner till date, qua the commission of offence as

alleged in any manner as such thus the petitioner is

liable to be set at liberty by granting concession of

bail.

8. That moreover as held in the case of AMAR SINGH

RAMJI BHAI BAROT vs STATE OF GUJARAT, 2005

(7) SCC 550 by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, in the

absence of any other evidence of conspiracy, charge

for offence under Section 29 of NDPS Act does not

stand established. In the present case also

prosecution has failed to prove charge for offence

under Section 29 of the NDPS Act beyond reasonable

doubt and mere disclosure statement of the main

accused and far stretched if any call details and no

recording so far that connects the petitioner with

main accused. As held in case R/CR.MA/1234/2022

YASH JAYESHBHAI CHAMPAKLAL SHAH Versus

STATE OF GUJARAT it has been observed as under:-

“ Having heard learned advocates for the appearing parties, it

emerges on record that the applicant is not found in

 11

possession of any contraband article. Over and above that, the

call data records may reveal that in an around the time of

incident, he was in contact with the co-accused who were

found in possession of contraband. Since there is no recording

of conversation in between the accused, mere contacts with

the co-accused who were found in possession cannot be

treated to be a corroborative material in absence of

substantive material found against the accused.” A perusal of

the above judgment would show that without the transcript of

the conversations exchanged between the coaccused, mere

call details would not be considered to be corroborative

material in absence of substantive material found against the

accused. In the present case, there is no other material

against the petitioners. Keeping in view the above-said facts

and circumstances, as well as law laid down in the judgments

noticed hereinabove, the present petitions are allowed and the

petitioners are ordered to be released on bail on their

furnishing bail/surety bonds to the satisfaction of the

concerned trial Court/Duty Magistrate and subject to their not

being required in any other case. (emphasis supplied)

9. That bare perusal of the aforementioned judgments

would show that bail can be granted to an

accused where he has been named in a

disclosure statement of his co-accused but

there is no recovery from him on his arrest and

the CDRs do not disclose the actual conversation that

transpired. It was also observed in the judgment of

 12

this Hon’ble High Court in CRM-M-4911-2024 (O &

M) titles as “Gurpreet Singh V/s State of

Haryana’’.

10. The petitioner is named in the disclosure statement of

his co-accused. He is in custody since 08.09.2023 and

none of the 22 prosecution witnesses have been

examined so far. Therefore, the Trial of the present

case is not likely to be concluded anytime soon.

11. That the perusal of the FIR would show that the

ingredients of the sections as alleged in the FIR are

not meted out even remotely in any manner

whatsoever.

12. That it is further submitted that it is the settled law

that petitioner if set at liberty by granting the bail,

would be in better position to put forth his case, the

petitioner is entitled to bail on this ground.

13. That as per the contents of the FIR, no offence is

made out against the petitioner, whereas he has

falsely been implicated by the police and nothing is to

be recovered from the petitioner, hence custodial

investigation of the petitioner is not required. The

petitioner has no concern with the offence as alleged

by the prosecution and petitioner is not apprehended

at the spot and there is no reasonable ground is

 13

made out for custodial interrogation of the petitioner.

Moreover, no specific role of the petitioner.

Moreover, offence under Section of IPC is not made

out against the petitioner.

14. That the trial of the present case will take sufficient

long time to conclude and no useful purpose would be

served by keeping the petitioner behind the bars.

15. That the petitioner is having his wife and two children

age of 7 year and 9 year and old father aged about

70 year and alone at home and father is suffering

from many old age ailments and the petitioner is the

main earning person in the family and the family of

the petitioner is fully dependent upon the petitioner

for their day to day needs and requirement.

16. That the petitioner moved an application for regular

bail before the learned Additional Session Judge,

Panchkula, which was declined without assigning

good reason stating that the present bail application

is the subsequent bail and since the dismissal of first

bail application no such development has been taken

place which could be considered for granting the

concession of bail in favour of the petitioner-accused.

However, it is pertinent to mention herein that the

first bail application B.A./190/2024 was filed under

 14

section 439 of CrPc on 20.02.2024 and same was

decided on 23.02.2024. This bail application was

dismissed stating that offence is of serious nature

and not even the interim bail was allowed for

attending the marriage of the nephew of the

petitioner at that time. A Copy of the order dated

23.02.2024 in Annexed herewith as Annexure P-2.

17. That the subsequent development which has

happened after dismissal of the first bail application

before trial court is that the Challan was presented on

05.03.2024 and charges have been framed on

08.05.2024 by Ld District and Sessions Judge

Panchkula. A Copy of the order dated 08.05.2024 in

Annexed herewith as Annexure P-3.

18. That the petitioner moved second bail application

BA/517/2024 before Ld. Trial Court application for

regular bail before the learned Additional Session

Judge, Panchkula, which was declined on 29.05.2024

without assigning good reason stating that the

present bail application is the subsequent bail and

since the dismissal of first bail application no such

development has been taken place which could be

considered for granting the concession of bail in

favour of the petitioner-accused. A Copy of the order

 15

dated 29.05.2024 in Annexed herewith as Annexure

P-4.

19. That the petitioner further undertakes not to threat

the witnesses and will not temper with the evidence.

20. That the petitioner undertakes to abide by all the

terms and conditions imposed by this Hon’ble Court

in the event of her bail.

21. That the has not been declared Proclaimed offender

or Proclaimed Person in the present case or in any

other case. That petitioner is not involved in any

other case or FIR or any other NDPS Case.

22. That no such or similar Petition on behalf of the

petitioner is pending in any Hon’ble Court of law.

It is, therefore, respectfully prayed that petition may

kindly be accepted and the petitioner may please be

granting the concession of regular bail or granting the

concession of interim bail till the final decision of the case,

in the interest of justice.

Note : Affidavit is not necessary.

(In Judicial Custody at Central Jail Ambala)

PLACE: CHANDIGARH
DATED: 03.06.2024.

THROUGH COUNSEL

(ROHIT CHANDEL)(ANIL KUMAR CHAUHAN)

 16

(VIRESH DAHIYA)(VICKY CHAUHAN)

ADVOCATES
COUNSEL FOR THE PETITIONE
 17

IN THE COURT OF HIGH COURT PUNJAB AND HARYANA

HIGH COURT AT CHANDIGARH

CRM-M _______ of 2024

(Presently confined in judicial custody at Central Jail Ambala).

Ravi Kumar … Petitioner

VERSUS
State of Haryana …
Respondent
INDEX
Sr Particulars Date Page C/F
No. no.
1. Urgent Form 03.06.2024 A --
2. Court fee/Process Fee Form 03.06.2024 B 50.00
3. Synopsis 03.06.2024 1-2
4. Memo of Party 03.06.2024 3
5. Petition U/s 439 Cr.P.C. 03.06.2024 4-10
6. Annexure P-1 Translated 08.09.2023 11-16
Copy of FIR 195/2023
7. Annexure P-2, Copy of Order 23.02.2024
in B.A./190/2024
8. Annexure P-3, Copy of Order 08.05.2024
9. Annexure P-4, Copy of Order 29.05.2024
in B.A./517/2024
10. VERNACULAR 08.09.2023
Annexure P-1, Copy of FIR
11. Power of Attorney and --
Aadhar Card
Note :
1. Scanned copy of the complete petition has been emailed
to State of Haryana on its official email id.
2. That the petition has not filed any such or similar petition
for grant of regular bail or interim bail either in this
Hon’ble court or in the Hon’ble Apex Court of India.
3. That the petitioner has not been declared Proclaimed
offender or person.
4. That present case does not pertain to the category of
case reserved for MP or MLA.
5. Similar Case- CRM-M-57001 of 2023 and CRM-M -3111 of
2024 is fixed for 18.07.2024.
PLACE: CHANDIGARH
DATED: 03.06.2024.
THROUGH COUNSEL
 18

(ROHIT CHANDEL) (ANIL KUMAR CHAUHAN)

(VIRESH DAHIYA)(VICKY CHAUHAN)

ADVOCATES
COUNSEL FOR THE PETITIONER