Punjab and Haryana High Court
CRM-M/15922/2026 of SAIMAL MASIH ALIAS SAMUAL MASIH Vs STATE OF PUNJAB on 3 September 2026
HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH (206) CRM-M-15922-2026 (O&M) Decided on : 03.09.2026 Uploaded on : 03.09.2026 Saimal Masih @ Samual Masih ……Petitioner(s) Versus State of Punjab ……Respondent(s) CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL Present: Mr.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
(206)
CRM-M-15922-2026 (O&M)
Decided on : 03.09.2026
Uploaded on : 03.09.2026
Saimal Masih @ Samual Masih
……Petitioner(s)
Versus
State of Punjab
……Respondent(s)
CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL
Present:
Mr. Lovepreet Singh Virk, Advocate, for the petitioner (s).
Mr. Jaypreet Singh, DAG, Punjab.
*****
Sumeet Goel, J. (Oral):
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
1
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
1. Apprehending his arrest in FIR No.173 dated 26.06.2025, registered for offences punishable under Sections 21-C, 25 & 29 of the NDPS Act, 1985, at Police Station ANTF (STF), District SAS Nagar, Mohali; the petitioner has preferred this petition under Section 482 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 seeking pre-arrest bail.
2. On 15.07.2026, the following order was passed:
“Apprehending his arrest in FIR No.173 dated 26.06.2025, registered for offences punishable under Sections 21-C, 25 & 29 of the NDPS Act, 1985, at Police Station ANTF (STF), District SAS Nagar, Mohali; the petitioner has preferred this petition under Section 482 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 seeking pre-arrest bail.
Inter alia, contends that the petitioner is sought to be implicated into the FIR in question solely on the basis of a disclosure statement made by co-accused from whom the
P a g e | 2
contraband in question has been allegedly recovered & the petitioner is willing to join investigation and cooperate therein. In order to buttress his arguments, learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the dicta of the judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in ‘Vijay Singh versus The State of Haryana’ bearing Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No(s).1266/2023, ‘State by (NCB) Bengaluru vs. Pallulabid Ahmad Arimutta & Anr’ 2022(1) RCR (Criminal) 762, ‘Tofan Singh vs. State of Tamil Nadu, AIR 2020 Supreme Court 5592, ‘Smt. Najmunisha, Abdul Hamid Chandmiya @ Ladoo Bapu vs. State of Gujrat, Narcotics Control Bureau’ 2024 INSC 29 and ‘Jugraj Singh Vs. State of Punjab’ bearing Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.)No.9190/2025.
Notice of motion.
On the strength of advance notice; Mr. Adhiraj Singh Thind, AAG, Punjab causes appearance and accepts notice on behalf of the respondent—State of Punjab.
Put up on 10.08.2026.
The petitioner is directed to appear before the Investigating Officer on 20.07.2026 at 11:00 A.M. in concerned Police Station and join investigation. In the event of arrest, the petitioner shall be released on interim bail subject to his furnishing personal/surety bond(s) to the satisfaction of the Arresting Officer/Investigating Officer. As and when further called by Investigating Officer, the petitioner shall join the investigation. He shall abide by the condition(s) enumerated under Section 482(2) of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.”
3. Learned State counsel (on instructions) has submitted that the petitioner has joined the investigation and is not required for custodial interrogation.
4. Keeping in view the factual milieu of the case in hand, especially the factum of the petitioner having joined investigation, he is not required for custodial interrogation and he being arrayed as an accused on the basis of disclosure statement, this Court is inclined to confirm the order dated 15.07.2026, in light of the dicta of the judgment passed by this Court in CRM-M-54032-2024 ‘Ashu Vs. State of Punjab’ and recent judgment
P a g e | 3
of the Hon’ble Supreme Court passed in ‘Jugraj Singh Vs. State of Punjab’ bearing Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No.9190/2025.
5. Accordingly, the petition is allowed and the order dated 15.07.2026 granting interim anticipatory bail to the petitioner is hereby made absolute, subject to the conditions as enumerated under Section 482(2) of BNSS.
6. This order should not be treated as “blanket” order. It will not be read granting petitioner indefinite protection from arrest. It shall be confined to the FIR mentioned ibid and will not operate in respect of any other incident that involves commission of an offence.
7. Liberty is reserved in favour of State/complainant to move for cancellation/recall of this order in case the petitioner violates any condition stipulated under Section 482(2) of BNSS or upon showing any other sufficient cause.
8. Needless to say that anything observed herein above shall not be construed to be an opinion on the merits of the case.
9. Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed off.
(SUMEET GOEL) 03.09.2026
JUDGE Naveen Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No
Whether Reportable : Yes/No