Punjab-Haryana High Court
Dixit Kumar vs State Of Haryana on 12 February, 2026
1
CRM-
CRM-M-118-
118-2026
124
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
CRM-
CRM-M-118-
118-2026
Dixit Kumar
....Petitioner
Petitioner
versus
State of Haryana
....Respondent
Date of decision: February 12, 2026
Date of Uploading: February 12, 2026
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL
Present:-
Present: Dr. Pankaj Nanhera, Senior Advocate with
Mr. Rishav Kamboj, Advocate and
Mr. Aman Mehta, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. Gurmeet Singh, AAG Haryana.
*****
SUMEET GOEL,
GOEL, J. (ORAL)
Present petition has been filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short 'BNSS' 'BNSS') for grant of regular bail to the petitioner, petitioner in case bearing FIR No No.292 dated 30.08.2025, registered for the offences offences punishable under Section Sections 22(c) and 27A of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short 'NDPS Act'), at Police Station City Tohana, District Fatehabad Fatehabad, Haryana.
2. The gravamen of the FIR in question is that during uring the intervening night of 29/30.08.2025, a police party headed by ASI Surender Singh, acting on secret information, apprehended co co-accused, namely, Kapil, son of Hem Raj. A recovery of 50 strips of NRX Etizolam tablets (each strip containing 10 tablets, totaling totaling 500 tablets), weighing 97 grams and 04 1 of 9 ::: Downloaded on - 14-02-2026 11:55:12 ::: 2 CRM-
CRM-M-118- 118-2026 milligrams along with the strips, was effected from his possession in the presence of DSP Umed Singh. Consequently, the present case was registered. During the course of investigation, co-accused, namely, Kapil was arrested and made a disclosure statement admitting his involvement in the offence. He further disclosed that he had purchased a total of 60 strips of NRX Etizolam tablets from Dixit Kumar (petitioner herein).
3. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner has iterated that the petitioner is in custody since 30.08.2025. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner iterated that the petitioner has nothing to do with the offence in question and he was implicated, in this case, solely on the basis of disclosure statement of co-accused, namely, Kapil, from whose possession, the alleged contraband has been recovered. Learned senior counsel has argued that the said disclosure statement cannot be the basis for implication of the petitioner as the same is inadmissible in law. Learned senior counsel has further argued that nothing has been recovered from the petitioner or his premises. Learned senior counsel has further argued that, in fact, the petitioner is the owner of a licenced medical store, namely, "Bhutani Medicose" situated at Ratia Road, Tohana, and is duly authorized to purchase and sell the drugs, as per law, and thus, provisions of Section 37 of the NDPS Act do not apply. Learned senior counsel has further argued that there is no material available with the prosecution to connect the petitioner with the offence in question, and provisions of Section 27-A of the NDPS Act have wrongly been incorporated in the present case, since the petitioner is not involved in any financing of illicit drug traffic and the harboring of offenders.
2 of 9 ::: Downloaded on - 14-02-2026 11:55:12 ::: 3 CRM-
CRM-M-118- 118-2026 3.1. Learned senior counsel has further submitted that mandatory provisions of the NDPS Act have not scrupulously been complied with, and thus, the prosecution case suffers from inherent defects. Learned senior counsel has iterated that the trial is delayed and the liability thereof cannot be fastened upon the petitioner. Learned senior counsel has further iterated that the petitioner has suffered incarceration for more than 05 months. Thus, regular bail is prayed for.
4. Learned State counsel has filed reply by way of an affidavit dated 02.02.2026, in this Court today, which is taken on record. Raising submissions in tandem with the said reply, learned State counsel has opposed the present petition by arguing that the allegations raised against the petitioner are serious in nature and, thus, the petitioner does not deserve the concession of the regular bail. Relevant part of the aforesaid reply reads thus:
"14.THAT THE ROLE PERFORMED BY THE PETITIONER- ACCUSED DIXIT IS AS UNDER:
That the present petitioner-accused Dixit Kumar is the principal supplier in the present NDPS network, who, being a qualified B-Pharmacist and license holder of Bhutani Medical Hall, Ratia Road, Tohana, misused his professional position to procure intoxicant tablets in bulk and sell them illegally for monetary gain. Petitioner-accused Dixit specifically disclosed in his disclosure statement that he regularly ordered NRX Etizolam and Clonazepam tablets online in the name of his medical store and thereafter diverted the same into the black market at double or triple profit. On 28.08.2025, he sold 60 strips of NRX Etizolam Tablets (Etivil-MD) to co-
accused Kapil for Rs. 6,000 on Ratia Road between Kainchi Chowk and ahead of Barad Chowk. The petitioner further disclosed that he had been engaged in illegal trafficking of intoxicant tablets for a long period and that drug traffickers from distant places used to purchase such medicines in bulk from his shop. Thus, the petitioner acted as the source supplier and facilitator of the commercial quantity contraband recovered from co- accused Kapil.
15. THAT THE EVIDENCE CAME ON RECORD AGAINST THE PETITIONER-ACCUSED DIXIT IS AS UNDER:
That the involvement of the petitioner-accused Dixit is clearly established through the disclosure statement of co-accused Kapil, who specifically named petitioner-accused Dixit as the person from whom 60 strips of NRX Etizolam Tablets were purchased for Rs. 6,000, out of which 50 strips (97.04 grams) were recovered, constituting commercial quantity. The said disclosure was corroborated by petitioner-accused Dixit's own voluntary 3 of 9 ::: Downloaded on - 14-02-2026 11:55:12 ::: 4 CRM-
CRM-M-118- 118-2026 disclosure statements, wherein he admitted procurement, sale and long- standing trafficking of intoxicant tablets, including supply to co-accused Kapil. During police remand, petitioner-accused Dixit pointed out the place of sale and further got recovered online purchase bills dated 31.07.2025 from APA Pharmaceuticals for 30 boxes of NRX Etizolam and Clonazepam tablets, along with photocopies of his shop licence, which were seized vide recovery memo. Additionally, the FSL report confirms presence of Etizolam in the recovered samples. The chain of circumstances i.e. recovery of commercial quantity from Kapil, consistent disclosure statements, recovery of online bills, licence documents, and scientific confirmation establishes prima facie involvement of the petitioner in financing and trafficking of narcotic substances. Consequently, in view of the statutory embargo contained under Section 37 of the NDPS Act, there are reasonable grounds to believe that the petitioner is not entitled to the concession of regular bail."
4.1. Learned State counsel has further iterated that, thus, the petition in hand does not meet the rigors of Section 37 of the NDPS Act and is, liable to be rejected on this score alone.
5. I have heard counsel for the rival parties and perused the paper- book as also the record produced before me.
6. Before delving further into the merits of the case, it would be apposite to refer herein to the judgment of this Court, in the case of Jaswinder CRM--M-33729 Singh alias Kala versus State of Punjab, passed in CRM 33729--2025 2025:PHHC:089161)) = 2025 SCC OnLine P&H4537; wherein, after relying (2025:PHHC:089161 upon the ratio decidendi of the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Union of India vs. Thamisharasi & Ors, 1995(4) SCC 190, Customs, New Delhi vs. Ahmadalieva Nodira, 2004 (3) SCC 549, Union of India vs. Shri Shiv Shanker Kesari, 2007(4) RCR(Criminal) 186, Satpal Singh vs. State of Punjab, 2018 (13) SCC 813, Narcotics Control Bureau vs. Mohit Aggarwal, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 613, Mohd. Muslim @ Hussain vs. State (NCT of Delhi) 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 260, Narcotics Control Bureau vs. Kashif, 2024 INSC 1045, Usmanbhai Dawoodbhai Memon vs. State of Gujarat, 1988(1) RCR(Criminal) 540, Ranjitsing Brahmajeetsing Sharma vs. State of 4 of 9 ::: Downloaded on - 14-02-2026 11:55:12 ::: 5 CRM-
CRM-M-118- 118-2026 Maharashtra & Anr. 2005(5) SCC 294, Central Bureau of Investigation vs. Vs. Vijay Sai Reddy, 2013(3) RCR (Criminal) 252, Municipal Corporation of Delhi vs. M/s Jagan Nath Ashok Kumar and another, 1987(4) SCC 497, Gujarat Water Supply and Sewerage Board vs. Unique Erectors (Gujarat) (P) Ltd., and another, 1987(1) SCC 532, Collector and others vs. P. Mangamma and others, 2003(4) SCC 488, Commissioner of Income-tax, Delhi vs. S. Teja Singh, 1958 SCC Online SC 30, Management of Advance Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Shri Gurudasmal and others 1970(1) SCC 633, Tinsukhia Electric Supply Co. Ltd. Vs. State of Assam, 1989(3) SCC 709 and Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Hindustan Bulk Carriers, 2003(3) SCC 57; it has been held, thus:
"14. As a sequitur to above-said rumination, the following postulates emerge:
(I) (i) A bail plea on merits; in respect of an FIR under NDPS Act of 1985 involving offence(s) under Section 19 or Section 24 or Section 27-A thereof and for offence(s) involving commercial quantity; is essentially required to meet with the rigour(s) of Section 37 of NDPS Act.
(ii) The rigour(s) of Section 37 of NDPS Act do not apply to a bail plea(s) on medical ground(s), interim bail on account of any exigency including the reason of demise of a close family relative etc.
(iii) The rigour(s) of Section 37 of NDPS Act pale into oblivion when bail is sought for on account of long incarceration in view of Article 21 of the Constitution of India i.e. where the bail-applicant has suffered long under-trial custody, the trial is procrastinating and folly thereof is not attributable to such bail-applicant. II. The twin conditions contained in Section 37(1)(b) of NDPS Act are in addition to the conditions/parameters contained in Cr.P.C./BNSS or any other applicable extant law.
III. The twin conditions contained in Section 37(1)(b) of NDPS Act are cumulative in nature and not alternative i.e. both the conditions are required to be satisfied for a bail-plea to be successful. IV. For consideration by bail Court of the condition stipulated in Section 37(1)(b)(i) of NDPS Act i.e. "there are reasonable grounds for believing that he is not guilty of such offence":
5 of 9 ::: Downloaded on - 14-02-2026 11:55:12 ::: 6 CRM-
CRM-M-118- 118-2026
(i) The bail Court ought to sift through all relevant material, including case-dairy, exclusively for the limited purpose of adjudicating such bail plea.
(ii) Such consideration, concerning the assessment of guilt or innocence, should not mirror the same degree of scrutiny required for an acquittal of the accused at the final adjudication & culmination of trial.
(iii) Plea(s) of defence by applicant-accused, if any, including material/documents in support thereof, may be looked into by the bail-Court while adjudicating such bail plea. V. For consideration of the condition stipulated in Section 37(1)(b)(ii) i.e. 'he is not likely to commit any offence while on bail':
(i) The word 'likely' ought to be interpreted as requiring a demonstrable and substantial probability of re-offending by the bail-
applicant, rather than a mere theoretical one, as no Court can predict future conduct of the bail-applicant.
(ii) The entire factual matrix of a given case including the antecedents of the bail-applicant, role ascribed to him, and the nature of offence are required to be delved into. However, the involvement of bail-applicant in another NDPS/other offence cannot ipso facto result in the conclusion of his propensity for committing offence in the future.
(iii) The bail-Court may, at the time of granting bail, impose upon the applicant-accused a condition that he would submit, at such regular time period/interval as may stipulated by the Court granting bail, an affidavit before concerned Special Judge of NDPS Court/Illaqa (Jurisdictional) Judicial Magistrate/concerned Police Station, to the effect that he has not been involved in commission of any offence after being released on bail. In the facts of a given case, imposition of such condition may be considered to be sufficient for satisfaction of condition enumerated in Section 37(1)(b)(ii). VI. There is no gainsaying that the nature, mode and extent of exercise of power by a Court; while satisfying itself regarding the conditions stipulated in Section 37 of NDPS Act; shall depend upon the judicial discretion exercised by such Court in the facts and circumstances of a given case. No exhaustive guidelines can possibly be laid down as to what would constitute parameters for satisfaction of requirement under Section 37 (ibid) as every case has its own unique facts/circumstances. Making such an attempt is nothing but a utopian endeavour. Ergo, this issue is best left to the judicial wisdom and discretion of the Court dealing with such matter."
7. The petitioner was arrested on 30.0.8.2025 whereinafter investigation was carried out and challan was presented on 05.12.2025 and charges have been framed on 20.01.2026. Out of total cited 17 prosecution witnesses, none has been examined till date. The trial is underway.
6 of 9 ::: Downloaded on - 14-02-2026 11:55:12 ::: 7 CRM-
CRM-M-118- 118-2026 7.1. As per prosecution case and upon perusal of the record, it emerges that the allegations leveled against the petitioner are grave and serious in nature. The material collected during investigation clearly establishes the petitioner as the principal supplier and source of procurement of the contraband substance. The recovery of commercial quantity of NRX Etizolam tablets from co-accused, namely, Kapil stands duly corroborated by his disclosure statement specifically naming the petitioner as the supplier, which is further strengthened by the petitioner's own voluntary disclosure admitting procurement and illegal sale of intoxicant tablets for monetary gain. The petitioner, being a qualified B-Pharmacist and licence holder of a medical store, misused his professional position to facilitate trafficking of psychotropic substances, thereby demonstrating deliberate and organized criminal conduct. The recovery of online purchase bills, licence documents and pointing out of the place of sale further forms a continuous chain of incriminating circumstances, which is scientifically supported by the FSL report confirming presence of 'Etizolam' in the recovered samples. 7.2. The contention raised by the petitioner that he has been falsely implicated solely on the basis of the disclosure statement of co-accused Kapil, is misconceived and devoid of merit. The involvement of the petitioner is not based merely upon the disclosure statement of the co-accused, but is duly supported by independent and corroborative evidence collected during the course of investigation. The co-accused - Kapil specifically named the petitioner as the supplier of NRX Etizolam tablets, which stands substantiated by the petitioner's own voluntary disclosure statement wherein he admitted procuring and illegally selling intoxicant tablets for monetary gains. Further, 7 of 9 ::: Downloaded on - 14-02-2026 11:55:12 ::: 8 CRM-
CRM-M-118- 118-2026 during police remand, the petitioner himself pointed out the place of sale and got recovered online purchase bills pertaining to procurement of bulk quantities of NRX Etizolam and Clonazepam tablets, along with licence- related documents of his medical store. The cumulative effect of recovery of commercial quantity from the co-accused, consistent disclosure statements, documentary recoveries and scientific confirmation clearly establishes a prima facie case against the petitioner.
7.3. In the facts and circumstances of the present case, particularly considering the recovery of commercial quantity of contraband and the prima facie material collected during investigation indicating the petitioner's active involvement in trafficking of psychotropic substances, it cannot be said that the rigors and statutory fetters imposed under Section 37 of the NDPS Act are not attracted or are inapplicable to the case of the petitioner. 7.4. Considering the seriousness of the offence, involvement in supply of commercial quantity, likelihood of influencing witnesses, possibility of tampering with evidence and the statutory bar contained under Section 37 of the NDPS Act, there exist no reasonable grounds to believe that the petitioner is innocent or would not commit similar offences, if released on bail. From the rival submissions as also the material brought forth before me, no cause is made out in favour of the petitioner to meet with the rigors of Section 37 of the NDPS Act. Hence, keeping in view the entirety of the factual milieu of the case in hand, the petition in hand deserves to be dismissed.
dismissed
8. Ordered accordingly.
8 of 9 ::: Downloaded on - 14-02-2026 11:55:12 ::: 9 CRM-
CRM-M-118- 118-2026
9. Nothing said hereinabove shall be construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case.
10. Since the main case has been decided, pending miscellaneous application, if any, shall also stands disposed off.
(SUMEET GOEL) GOEL) JUDGE February 12, 2026 mahavir Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No Whether reportable: Yes/No 9 of 9 ::: Downloaded on - 14-02-2026 11:55:12 :::