CRM-M/51565/2026 of LOVEPREET SINGH ALIAS LOVE Vs STATE OF PUNJAB on 11 September 2026

CRM CRM CRM CRM-M-51565

IN THE HIG IN THE HIG IN THE HIG IN THE HIG

Lovepreet Sin State of Punja

Date of Decis Date of Decis Date of Decis Date of Decis Date of Uploa Date of Uploa Date of Uploa Date of Uploa

CORAM:

CORAM:

CORAM:

CORAM:

Present: Present: Present: Present:-

SUMEET GO SUMEET GO SUMEET GO SUMEET GO

Nagarik Sura P.C.) for gran dated 01.05.2 the Arms Act C, 29 of the Police Station

2. US$ 3500 and

3. has been fal argued that th 5-2026

GH COURT OF PUNJAB AND H GH COURT OF PUNJAB AND H GH COURT OF PUNJAB AND H GH COURT OF PUNJAB AND H

CRM CRM CRM CRM-M-51565

51565-2 ngh alias Love versus ab sion: sion: sion: sion: September 11 September 11 September 11 September 11, , , , 2026

ading: ading: ading: ading: September 11 September 11 September 11 September 11, 2026 , 2026 , 2026 , 2026 HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUME HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUME HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUME HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUME Mr. Harpreet Pal Singh Bunger, A Mr. Adhiraj Singh Thind, AAG P ***** ***** ***** ***** OEL OEL OEL OEL, J. (ORAL) , J. (ORAL) , J. (ORAL) , J. (ORAL) Present petition has been filed un aksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short ‘BN nt of anticipatory bail to the petit 2024, registered for the offences t, 1959, Sections 10, 11, 12 of the NDPS Act added later on) and G n – Khalra, District Tarn Taran. The FIR in question pertains to d 02 fire arms. Learned counsel for the petition sely implicated into the FIR in he petitioner has not been named

HARYANAAT CHANDIGARH HARYANAAT CHANDIGARH HARYANAAT CHANDIGARH HARYANAAT CHANDIGARH

….Petitioner ….Respondent EET GOEL EET GOEL EET GOEL EET GOEL Advocate for the petitioner. Punjab. nder Section 482 of the Bharatiya NSS’) (erstwhile Section 438 Cr. tioner, in case bearing FIR No.51 punishable under Section 25 of e Aircraft Act, 1934 (Sections 21- GDD No.20 dated 26.06.2024, at recovery of 3.40 kg. of Heroin, ner has argued that the petitioner n question. Learned counsel has d in the FIR in question. Learned

r t a .

f - t , r s d MAHAVIR SINGH 2026.09.11 15:35 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/ judgment

CRM CRM CRM CRM-M-51565

51565-2026

counsel has further argued that the petitioner has been implicated solely on the basis of the disclosure statement of a co-accused – Ranjit Singh @ Rana, which is per se not admissible in law, and, thus, the same cannot be the basis for implication of the petitioner. Learned counsel has urged that the said co- accused has been granted the concession of bail by this Court, vide order dated 29.08.2025. Learned counsel has further argued that there is not even an iota of evidence, available with the prosecution, to show complicity of the petitioner in the offence in question.

3.1. Learned counsel has argued that nothing is to be recovered from the petitioner. Learned counsel has further iterated that the petitioner is ready and willing to join investigation. On the basis of the aforementioned submissions, grant of the instant petition is prayed for.

4. Learned State counsel has opposed the grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner by arguing that allegations raised against the petitioner are serious in nature. Learned State counsel has, thus, argued that the petitioner has been specifically named in the disclosure statement of the co-accused. It has been argued that recovery in this case is 3.40 kg. of Heroin, US$ 3500 and 02 fire arms. Learned State counsel has further argued that investigation in the present case is still under way and the petitioner is yet to be arrested. The petitioner does not bear clean antecedents. Given these circumstances, custodial interrogation of the petitioner is indispensable. Learned State counsel submits that in case the petitioner is accorded concession of anticipatory bail, there is all likelihood that he may abscond from the process of justice as also influence the prosecution witnesses. Thus, the present petition is devoid of merit and is liable to be dismissed. MAHAVIR SINGH 2026.09.11 15:35 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/ judgment

CRM CRM CRM CRM-M-51565

51565-2026

5. I have heard the learned counsel for the rival parties and have gone through the available record of the case.

6. As per the prosecution case, serious allegations have been leveled against the petitioner. The prosecution case, prima facie, reveals that huge contraband in question was recovered in this case. Perusal of the prosecution case further reveals that name of the petitioner surfaced during the course of investigation on the basis of the disclosure statement of said co-accused. Thus, the material available on record and investigation conducted so far, prima facie, establish the complicity of the petitioner in the offence in question.

6.1. Perusal of the petition in hand shows that the petitioner has himself admitted that he is involved in 03 other FIR(s) under the NDPS Act. The aforesaid criminal antecedent(s) reveal that the petitioner is a habitual offender with a tendency to indulge in criminal activities. Such antecedent(s) cannot be brushed aside as a mere coincidence and is a relevant consideration while adjudicating the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail. The criminal antecedent(s) of the petitioner also raise a reasonable apprehension that, if enlarged on bail, he may indulge in similar criminal activities, misuse the concession of bail, or interfere with the fair course of justice. The possibility of his absconding or influencing prosecution witnesses also cannot be ruled out.

6.2. The other pleas raised by the petitioner, including those of false implication etc., are matters to be adjudicated on the basis of evidence during the course of trial. Such disputed questions of fact(s) cannot be conclusively determined at the stage of consideration of the petitioner’s prayer for anticipatory bail. MAHAVIR SINGH 2026.09.11 15:35 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/ judgment

CRM CRM CRM CRM-M-51565

51565-2026

6.3. No cause nay plausible cause has been shown, at this stage, from which it can be deciphered that the petitioner has been falsely implicated into the present FIR.

7. It is befitting to mention here that while considering plea for grant of anticipatory bail, the Court has to equilibrate between safeguarding individual rights and protecting societal interest(s). The Court ought to reckon with the magnitude and nature of the offence; the role attributed to the accused; the need for fair and free investigation as also the deeper and wider impact of such alleged iniquities on the society. At this stage, there is no material on record to hold that prima facie case is not made out against the petitioner. The material which has come on record and preliminary investigation appear to establish reasonable basis for the accusations. Thus, it is not appropriate to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner, as it would necessarily cause impediment in effective investigation. A profitable reference in this regard is being made to the dicta passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court titled as State State State State v. v. v. v. Anil Sharma, (1997) 7 SCC 187 : 1997 SCC (Cri) 1039 Anil Sharma, (1997) 7 SCC 187 : 1997 SCC (Cri) 1039 Anil Sharma, (1997) 7 SCC 187 : 1997 SCC (Cri) 1039 Anil Sharma, (1997) 7 SCC 187 : 1997 SCC (Cri) 1039, the Supreme Court held as under, relevant whereof reads as under: “6. We find force in the submission of CBI that custodial interrogation is qualitatively more elicitation-oriented than questioning a suspect who is well- ensconced with a favourable order under Section 438 of the Code. In a case like this, effective interrogation of a suspected person is of tremendous advantage in disinterring many useful informations and also materials which would have been concealed. Success in such interrogation would elude if the suspected person knows that he is well protected and insulated by a pre-arrest bail order during the time he is interrogated. Very often interrogation in such a condition would reduce to a mere ritual. The argument that the custodial interrogation is fraught with the danger of the person being subjected to third-degree methods need not be countenanced, for, such an argument can be advanced by all accused in all criminal cases. The Court has to presume that responsible police officers would conduct themselves in a responsible manner and that those entrusted with the task of disinterring offences would not conduct themselves as offenders.”

MAHAVIR SINGH 2026.09.11 15:35 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/ judgment

CRM CRM CRM CRM-M-51565

51565-2026

8. Accordingly, this Court is of the considered opinion that keeping in view the seriousness of allegations and his antecedents, the petitioner is not entitled to the concession of anticipatory bail in the factual milieu of the case in hand. Moreover, custodial interrogation of the petitioner is necessary for an effective investigation & to unravel the truth. The petition is, thus, devoid of merits and is hereby dismissed dismissed dismissed dismissed.

9. Nothing said hereinabove shall be deemed to be an expression of opinion upon merits of the case/investigation.

10. Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed off.

(SUMEET GOEL SUMEET GOEL SUMEET GOEL SUMEET GOEL)

JUDGE JUDGE JUDGE JUDGE September 11 September 11 September 11 September 11, 2026 , 2026 , 2026 , 2026 mahavir Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No

Whether reportable:

Yes/No MAHAVIR SINGH 2026.09.11 15:35 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/ judgment