Mohan Lal vs State Of Haryana

CRM-M-40525-2026 (O&M) -:1:-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
(217- 2 )
CRM-M-40525-2026 (O&M)
Date of Decision: 14.09.2026
MOHAN LAL
… Petitioner
Versus
STATE OF HARYANA
... Respondent
-.-
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIRINDER AGGARWAL
Present:- Mr. Jitender Dhanda, Advocate;
Mr. Vikas Kumar, Advocate and
Ms. Suman Sagar, Advocate
for the petitioner.
Mr. Karan Veer Singh, DAG, Haryana.
-.-
VIRINDER AGGARWAL , J . (Oral)
1. Mr. Jitender Dhanda, Advocate, puts in appearance on behalf
of the petitioner and files fresh power of attorney, after obtaining ‘ no
objection ’ from the counsel previously representing the petitioner. The
same is taken on record, subject to all just exceptions.
1.1. Second petition under Section 483 of the BNSS, 2023 for
grant of regular bail to the petitioner pending trial in FIR No. 120 dated
25.05.2025, registered under Sections 15-C and 27-A of the Narcotic
Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, at Police Station Bhattu
Kalan, District Fatehabad. The earlier petition preferred by the petitioner
was dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 07.04.2026 (Annexure P-4).
GAURAV SOROT
2026.09.14 16:04
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CRM-M-40525-2026 (O&M) -:2:-
2. Briefly stated, 78.670 kg poppy-husk was allegedly recovered
from applicant Mohan Lal on 25.05.2025. During investigation, Section
27-A of the NDPS Act was added on his disclosure regarding procurement
from co-accused Davender Kumar, who implicated Vinay and Vijay.
Hence the registration of the present FIR.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that no recovery
whatsoever has been effected from the petitioner and that he has been
falsely implicated in the present case. It is contended that the petitioner
was, in fact, apprehended from Rajasthan but was subsequently shown to
have been apprehended from the alleged place of recovery and the
contraband was falsely planted upon him. It is further submitted that the
petitioner has approached the competent authority in Rajasthan and that
the mobile-phone location of one of the police officials forming part of the
police party places him at the petitioner’s residence, thereby lending
material support to the petitioner’s version. It is, accordingly, prayed that
the petitioner be extended the concession of regular bail and the present
petition be allowed.
4. Custody certificate filed by learned State counsel is taken on
record, subject to all just exceptions.
4.1. Per contra, learned State counsel opposes the present
petition and submits that the impugned order suffers from neither any
illegality nor any material infirmity warranting interference by this Court.
It is contended that the case involves recovery of a huge quantity of
contraband, thereby attracting the rigours of Section 37 of the NDPS Act.
It is further submitted that the petitioner has antecedents and has been
involved in seven other criminal cases, reflecting his repeated involvement
GAURAV SOROT
2026.09.14 16:04
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CRM-M-40525-2026 (O&M) -:3:-
in criminal activity. Learned State counsel submits that the Trial Court has
passed a comprehensive and well-reasoned order after duly considering
the factual matrix and the applicable legal principles. Dismissal of the
present petition has, accordingly, been prayed for.
5. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and with their
able assistance, this Court has perused the record with due care and
deliberation.
6. The petitioner is alleged to be in conscious possession of
78.670 kilograms of poppy-husk, which falls within the commercial
quantity. The petitioner is also stated to be involved in about six other
criminal cases and has a previous conviction under the Excise Act in FIR
No. 115 dated 10.04.2014, registered under the Excise Act at Police
Station Taranagar. His antecedents, viewed cumulatively with the
substantial recovery involved in the present case, weigh against extending
the concession of regular bail.
6.1. The plea of false implication and the contention that the
petitioner was apprehended from Rajasthan, rather than from the alleged
place of recovery, raise disputed questions of fact. The evidentiary worth
of the material relied upon by the petitioner, including the alleged mobile-
phone location of a police official, would require proper appreciation of
evidence and cannot appropriately be undertaken in the present
proceedings so as to record findings on disputed factual issues. Such
matters are best left for adjudication by the Trial Court on the basis of the
evidence led by the parties.
6.2. Having regard to the nature and magnitude of the alleged
recovery, the petitioner’s involvement in multiple criminal cases, his
GAURAV SOROT
2026.09.14 16:04
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CRM-M-40525-2026 (O&M) -:4:-
antecedents including a previous conviction, and the statutory embargo
engrafted under Section 37 of the NDPS Act, this Court is not persuaded to
record the requisite satisfaction contemplated thereunder so as to warrant
his release on bail. Any further expression of opinion on the merits of the
case is considered inappropriate, lest it prejudice the respective cases of
the parties at trial.
6.3. Accordingly, without expressing any opinion on the merits of
the case, the present petition seeking grant of regular bail is dismissed .
7. In view of the final adjudication of the principal matter, all
pending miscellaneous applications, if any, arising out of or ancillary to
the present proceedings shall also stand disposed of accordingly. No
separate or further orders are called for in respect of such applications, the
same having been rendered infructuous in consequence of the present
adjudication.

( VIRINDER AGGARWAL )
14.09.2026 JUDGE
Gaurav Sorot
Whether reasoned / speaking? Yes / No
Whether reportable? Yes / No
GAURAV SOROT
2026.09.14 16:04
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document