POCSO Victim's Marriage Statement Tips Bail Scale in Commercial Heroin Case, Punjab & Haryana HC Rules

Weighing over a year in custody and zero prosecution witnesses examined against 417 grams of heroin, Justice Sanjay Vashisth granted bail after the POCSO victim appeared in court to confirm her marriage to the accused.

The Punjab and Haryana High Court at Chandigarh granted regular bail on 9 July 2026 to Rohit Kumar, also known as Lobhi, who had been in custody for more than sixteen months on charges of possessing a commercial quantity of heroin under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985. Justice Sanjay Vashisth, sitting singly, held that ordinary disinclination to grant bail in a commercial-quantity NDPS case was displaced by two concurrent facts: not a single prosecution witness had been examined out of 21 cited witnesses, and the woman who was the complainant in a separate POCSO case against the petitioner appeared in court to state that she had since married him and the couple had a child. The petition was filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.

The Arrest and the FIR

On 23 February 2025, acting on secret information, police from ‘A’ Division, Amritsar arrested Rohit Kumar and recovered 417 grams of heroin, Rs. 23,400 described as drug money, and a digital weighing scale from his possession. He was taken from his Honda City car at approximately 6:20 PM, according to CCTV footage relied upon by defence counsel.

During investigation, Rohit Kumar made a disclosure statement naming one Vikram Kumar, also known as Bunty, as the source of the contraband. The two had met in jail and had been in association for about two years. On the strength of that statement, Vikram Kumar was apprehended and 30 grams of heroin were recovered from him.

The FIR was registered under Sections 21, 61, and 85 of the NDPS Act, 1985. Sections 21-C, 25, 27, and 29 of the same Act were added subsequently. The quantity recovered from the petitioner—417 grams—fell in the commercial category, which ordinarily attracts a higher threshold for bail.

Prior Bail History and the Petitioner's Antecedents

This was Rohit Kumar's second bail petition before the High Court. His first petition, CRM-M-22853-2025, was dismissed as not pressed at that stage by a Coordinate Bench on 23 July 2025.

Defence counsel placed before the court that the petitioner was shown to be involved in several other criminal cases, including one under the NDPS Act from 2022 in which he was already on bail, and one under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act. The State counsel, appearing for the respondent, relied on the commercial quantity and these antecedents to oppose the prayer.

The POCSO Victim Appears in Person

The defence submitted that the victim in the POCSO case had married the petitioner in 2019 and that a child had been born from the marriage. The court did not simply accept this submission. Justice Vashisth called upon the woman, identified in the order as Ms. Nidhi, to state her position directly.

Ms. Nidhi appeared in person and was identified by the petitioner's counsel. When asked by the court, she stated that after the conclusion of proceedings in the POCSO case she had solemnised marriage with the petitioner, that they were living together as husband and wife, and that a child had been born from the marriage.

Justice Vashisth was careful to clarify the weight of this statement: “aforesaid circumstance has no bearing on merits of present NDPS case.” The court treated it not as a ground going to guilt or innocence in the NDPS matter, but as an indicator that the petitioner had an opportunity to lead a settled family life and rehabilitate himself in society.

Trial Delay: The Decisive Factor

The State counsel, on a specific query from the court, confirmed that out of the 21 prosecution witnesses cited in the case, none had been examined as of the date of hearing. Rohit Kumar had been in custody continuously since 23 February 2025 — a period the court calculated at one year, four months, and eleven days.

Justice Vashisth observed that the court would not ordinarily have been inclined to extend bail given the nature of the allegations, the commercial quantity of contraband, and the petitioner's antecedents. However, these factors were weighed alongside the complete absence of trial progress and the duration of pre-trial custody. The court held that “further incarceration of petitioner would not serve any useful purpose.”

The bench also noted that the allegations against the petitioner remained to be established through cogent and substantive evidence during trial, and that recording statements of 21 prosecution witnesses would consume considerable time. Keeping all these circumstances together — custody period, trial stage, the family situation, and the pending examination of witnesses — the court found it appropriate to extend bail.

Conditions and Safeguards

Justice Vashisth directed that bail be subject to the petitioner furnishing bail and surety bonds to the satisfaction of the trial court, the Chief Judicial Magistrate, the Illaqa Magistrate, or the Duty Magistrate concerned, provided he was not required in any other case.

The court added that the petitioner shall not extend any threat to, or influence, any prosecution witness directly or indirectly. It further clarified that if the petitioner is directly found indulged in similar activities in future, the bail order shall be deemed cancelled.

The court was explicit that none of the observations in the order should be read as an expression of opinion on the facts of the case, and that the trial court is expected to decide independently on the basis of the evidence on record, as expeditiously as possible.

Outcome

CRM-M-12148-2026 was allowed. Rohit Kumar @ Lobhi was ordered to be released on regular bail pending trial. All pending miscellaneous applications in the petition were also disposed of. The trial court was directed to proceed independently and decide the matter on the evidence.