CRM-M/41310/2026 of SAGEER AHMED Vs STATE OF HARYANA on 28 July 2026

CRM CRM CRM CRM-M-41310

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

Sageer Ahma

State of Hary

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 gra No.0854 date 21(c) of the N later on), at P

2. grams of He implicated on

3. has been fal 0-2026

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-41310

41310-2 ad versus yana sion: sion: sion: sion: July 28 July 28 July 28 July 28, 2026 , 2026 , 2026 , 2026 ading: ading: ading: ading: July 28 July 28 July 28 July 28, 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. Inderpreet Singh Kooner, Ad Mr. Gurmeet Singh, AAG Haryan ***** ***** ***** ***** OEL OEL OEL OEL, J. (ORAL) , J. (ORAL) , J. (ORAL) , J. (ORAL) Present petition has been filed un aksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short ‘BN ant of anticipatory bail to the ed 16.11.2023, registered for the o NDPS Act, 1985 (Sections 27(a) Police Station Rohtak City, Distric The gravamen of the FIR in que eroin from the co-accused – N n the basis of disclosure statement Learned counsel for the petition sely implicated into the FIR in

HARYANAAT CHANDIGARH HARYANAAT CHANDIGARH HARYANAAT CHANDIGARH HARYANAAT CHANDIGARH

….Petitioner ….Respondent EET GOEL EET GOEL EET GOEL EET GOEL dvocate for the petitioner. na. nder Section 482 of the Bharatiya NSS’) (erstwhile Section 438 Cr. petitioner, in case bearing FIR offences punishable under Section ) and 29 of the NDPS Act added ct Rohtak. estion pertains to recovery of 550 Naeem. The petitioner has been t of one of the co-accused. ner has argued that the petitioner n question. Learned counsel has

r t a . R n d n r s MAHAVIR SINGH 2026.07.28 17:02 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/ judgment

CRM CRM CRM CRM-M-41310

41310-2026

argued that mandatory provisions of the NDPS Act have not scrupulously been complied with and, thus, the prosecution case suffers from inherent defects. Learned counsel has argued that the petitioner has not been named in the FIR in question. Learned counsel has further argued that the petitioner has been implicated solely on the basis of the disclosure statement of a co-accused, which is per se not admissible in law, and, thus, the same cannot be the basis for implication of the petitioner. 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 for the petitioner has urged that co-accused of the petitioner, namely, Musrat Ali, Jaswant @ Jashvant and Rohit alias Kala have been accorded the concession of regular bail, vide orders dated 29.05.2024 passed in CRM CRM CRM CRM-M-10524 10524 10524 10524-2024

2024, dated 03.12.2025 passed in CRM CRM CRM CRM-M-2490

2025 and dated 11.12.2025 passed in CRM CRM CRM CRM-M-61605 61605 61605 61605-2025

2025.

3.2. 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. Per contra, 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. 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 MAHAVIR SINGH 2026.07.28 17:02 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/ judgment

CRM CRM CRM CRM-M-41310

41310-2026

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/ intimidate the prosecution witnesses. Thus, the present petition is devoid of merit and is liable to be dismissed.

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 is that co-accused of the petitioner, namely, Naeem was apprehended and 550 grams of heroin was recovered from his possession. During the course of investigation, Musrat Ali, Jaswant @ Jashvant and Rohit @ Kala came to be nominated as accused on the basis of disclosure statements. The petitioner was thereafter implicated on the basis of the disclosure statement of co-accused Jaswant @ Jashvant. Perusal of the prosecution case reveals that the petitioner was not named in the FIR, initially, and his name surfaced, subsequently, during the course of investigation, on the basis of the disclosure statement of co-accused.

6.1. That apart, the petitioner himself has admitted in the averments made in the present petition that he is involved in one more case pertaining to NDPS Act. The aforesaid criminal antecedents reveal that the petitioner is a habitual offender with a tendency to indulge in criminal activities. Such antecedents cannot be brushed aside as a mere coincidence and is a relevant consideration while adjudicating the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail. The criminal antecedents of the petitioner also raise a reasonable apprehension that, if enlarged on bail, he may indulge in similar criminal activities, misuse the MAHAVIR SINGH 2026.07.28 17:02 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/ judgment

CRM CRM CRM CRM-M-41310

41310-2026

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 contention raised on behalf of the petitioner that co-accused, namely, Musrat Ali, Jaswant @ Jashvant and Rohit @ Kala, have been granted the concession of regular bail does not advance the case of the petitioner. The said co-accused were granted regular bail after their arrest and custodial interrogation. The petition in hand, however, seeks the extraordinary relief of anticipatory bail, which stands on a different footing altogether. It is well settled that the considerations governing the grant of anticipatory bail are distinct from those applicable to regular bail. While regular bail is considered after the accused has submitted to the jurisdiction of the investigating agency/ Court and has undergone custodial interrogation, anticipatory bail is a pre- arrest remedy intended to protect an individual against unwarranted arrest. At the stage of considering anticipatory bail, the Court is required to be more cautious and to examine, inter alia, the nature and gravity of the accusation, the necessity of custodial interrogation, the possibility of the accused influencing witnesses or tampering with evidence, and the overall impact of granting pre- arrest protection on a fair and effective investigation. Consequently, the mere fact that the co-accused have been granted regular bail cannot, by itself, entitle the petitioner to the concession of anticipatory bail, particularly when the parameters governing the two remedies are materially different.

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. MAHAVIR SINGH 2026.07.28 17:02 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/ judgment

CRM CRM CRM CRM-M-41310

41310-2026

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. 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) Anil Sharma, (1997) 7 SCC 187 : 1997 SCC (Cri) Anil Sharma, (1997) 7 SCC 187 : 1997 SCC (Cri) Anil Sharma, (1997) 7 SCC 187 : 1997 SCC (Cri) 1039

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.”

8. 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, preliminary investigation and the petitioner having no clean antecedents, appear to establish a reasonable basis for his accusation. Accordingly, this Court is of the considered opinion that the petitioner does not deserve 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. MAHAVIR SINGH 2026.07.28 17:02 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/ judgment

CRM CRM CRM CRM-M-41310

41310-2026

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 July 28 July 28 July 28 July 28, 2026 , 2026 , 2026 , 2026 mahavir Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No

Whether reportable:

Yes/No MAHAVIR SINGH 2026.07.28 17:02 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/ judgment