CRM-M/34821/2026 of LUCKY BANSAL Vs STATE OF PUNJAB on 27 August 2026

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

CRM-M No.34821 of 2026 Date of Decision:-27.08.2026

Lucky Bansal …..Petitioner. Versus State of Punjab .....Respondent.

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE VIKRAM AGGARWAL ***** Present:- Mr. Mandeep Kumar Dhot, Advocate

for the petitioner.

Mr. Rahul Jindal, AAG, Punjab.

VIKRAM AGGARWAL, J. (ORAL)

Prayer in the present petition preferred under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short, ‘the BNSS’) is for the grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner in case FIR No.0170 dated 29.05.2026 registered under Section 15(b) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short ‘the NDPS Act’) (Section 29 of the NDPS Act added later on), at Police Station Lambi, District Muktsar Sahib.

2. Reply by way of affidavit of Sh. Harbans Singh, PPS, Deputy Superintendent of Police, Sub-Division Lambi, District Sri Muktsar Sahib, along with Annexure R-1/T and the vernacular version thereof, filed in Court today, is taken on record. The Registry is directed to tag the same at an appropriate place on the case file.

3. On 26.06.2026, the following order was passed by a YAG DUTT

coordinate Bench:-

“Present petition has been filed for anticipatory bail under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short 'BNSS') (erstwhile Section 438 Cr.P.C) in FIR No.0170 dated 29.05.2026, registered under Sections 15(b) of NDPS Act and 29 of NDPS (added later on) at Police Station Lambi, District Muktsar Sahib.

Learned counsel for the petitioner, inter alia, contends that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is submitted that the petitioner was neither named in the FIR nor arrested at the spot, and no recovery has been effected from his conscious possession. Learned counsel further submits that kilograms of poppy husk (Bhukki/Chura) was recovered from the co-accused, which falls within the category of non-commercial quantity under the provisions of the NDPS Act.

It is further contended that the petitioner has been nominated as an accused solely on the basis of the disclosure statement of a co-accused recorded while in police custody. Such a disclosure statement, in the absence of any discovery or recovery pursuant thereto, has no independent evidentiary value in the eyes of law and cannot, by itself, constitute the basis for implicating the petitioner.

Learned counsel further submits that, apart from the aforesaid disclosure statement, there is no incriminating material or independent evidence on record to connect the petitioner with the alleged recovery or the commission of the alleged offence. It is also contended that the petitioner has not been involved in any other case under the NDPS Act and has clean antecedents. The petitioner is ready and willing to join the investigation as and when required, to cooperate with the Investigating Agency, and no custodial interrogation of the YAG DUTT

petitioner is warranted.

Notice of motion for 27.08.2026.

In the meantime, keeping in view the law enunciated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Satender Kumar Antil Vs. CBI (2022) 10 SCC 51; Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre Vs. State of Maharashtra and others 2010 SCC OnLine SC 137; Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia etc. Vs. State of Punjab (1980) 2 SCC 565, Arnesh Kumar Vs. State of Bihar (2014) 8 SCC 273 and Sushila Aggarwal Vs. State of NCT Delhi 2020 (1) RCR (Criminal) 833, at the first instance, the petitioner directed to appear before the Investigating Officer within two weeks from today and on his doing so or in the event of arrest, the petitioner shall be admitted to interim bail on furnishing of bail/surety bond to the satisfaction of the Investigating/ Arresting Officer. The petitioner shall cooperate with the Investigating/Arresting Officer and abide by the conditions as provided under Section 482 (2) BNSS.

If the Investigating/Arresting Officer does not permit the petitioner to join the investigation, the petitioner would appear before the Illaqa Magistrate, who would then summon the Investigating/Arresting Officer and direct him to join the petitioner in investigation, in terms of the order of this Court Nothing observed hereinabove shall be construed as expression of opinion of this Court on merits of the case and the trial Court shall proceed without being prejudiced by observations of this Court.”

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in compliance of the aforesaid order dated 26.06.2026, the petitioner has duly joined investigation.

5. Learned State counsel, on instructions from HC Bhupinder Singh, who is present in the Court, submits that in compliance of the order YAG DUTT

dated 26.06.2026, the petitioner has duly joined investigation and his custodial interrogation is not required.

6. In view of the fact that the petitioner has duly joined investigation and keeping in view the statement given by learned counsel representing the State of Punjab, the present petition is allowed. The order dated 26.06.2026 is made absolute, subject to compliance of the provisions as envisaged under Section 482(2) of the BNSS.

(VIKRAM AGGARWAL) August 27, 2026

JUDGE Yag Dutt

Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No

Whether Reportable: Yes/No YAG DUTT