Manish vs. State Of Haryana

Facts

The petitioner, Manish, is accused in FIR No. 283 dated 02.12.2024, registered at Police Station Nagina, District Nuh, under Section 22(c) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, with subsequent additions of Sections 336(3), 338, 340(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. The case involves the recovery of 54 boxes of Acetaminophen, Tramadol HCL & Dicyclomine HCL Capsules (totaling 6.885 Kg) from the house of Asma, wife of Sakir. Investigation revealed that the drugs were procured by a firm, M/s Sunglow Enterprises, which allegedly operated with a forged license. The petitioner was arrested on 26.09.2025 based on the disclosure statement of co-accused Shakeel Ahmed, who alleged that the petitioner issued a fake e-stamp on 11.02.2024 in the name of a deceased person and prepared a fake rent agreement with a forged notary stamp to facilitate the procurement of a GST number for Sunglow Enterprises. The forged notary stamp paper was recovered from the petitioner's shop.

Held

The Court granted regular bail to the petitioner, Manish. The Court considered the fact that the petitioner was arrested on 26.09.2025 and had been in custody since then. It took note of the role attributed to the petitioner as per the prosecution's case and importantly, the petitioner's lack of criminal antecedents. The Court was of the opinion that further detention of the petitioner would serve no useful purpose, especially without the prospect of a speedy trial, which would violate his rights under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. The Court reiterated the principle that "Bail is a general rule and incarceration is an exception," as laid down by the Supreme Court. The petitioner was granted bail subject to furnishing bail/surety bonds to the satisfaction of the trial court and adherence to specific conditions, including not tampering with evidence, not intimidating witnesses, appearing in court, not committing similar offences, not misusing liberty, and providing his address and mobile number. The Court clarified that its observations were limited to the bail proceedings and did not constitute an opinion on the merits of the case.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioner, Manish, is entitled to regular bail in FIR No. 283 dated 02.12.2024, registered under Section 22(c) of the NDPS Act and other relevant sections, considering his role as alleged by the prosecution and his period of custody. Petitioner's Arguments: The petitioner contends he has been falsely implicated solely on the disclosure statement of a co-accused and was not named in the FIR. He claims to be merely a stamp vendor with no knowledge of the purpose for which the stamp papers were used. He asserts that the e-stamp was issued after seeing documents and that he has no criminal antecedents. He also highlights that co-accused Alim has been granted bail and requests a lenient view. Respondent's (State of Haryana) Arguments: The State opposes the bail, arguing that the petitioner issued fake stamp papers and prepared a fake rent agreement with a forged notary stamp, thereby facilitating the co-accused in obtaining a GST number for their fake firm. They emphasize that the e-stamp was issued in the name of a deceased person.