CRM-M/41154/2026 of VICKY Vs STATE OF HARYANA on 28 July 2026

CRM CRM CRM CRM-M-41154

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

Vicky

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 gran dated 12.06.2 the NDPS Ac

2. grams of He petitioner is s of co-accused

3. has been fal 4-2026

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-41154

41154-2 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. Dhruv Gupta, Advocate for th 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 nt of anticipatory bail to the petiti 2026, registered for the offences ct, 1985, at Police Station Ambala The gravamen of the FIR in que eroin/ smack from the co-accus sought to be arrayed primarily on d. 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 he petitioner. na. nder Section 482 of the Bharatiya NSS’) (erstwhile Section 438 Cr. oner, in case bearing FIR No.224 punishable under Section 21 of a City, District Ambala. estion pertains to recovery of 15 sed – Vijay @ Bhaiji, and the n the basis of disclosure statement ner has argued that the petitioner n question. Learned counsel has

r t a .

f e t r s MAHAVIR SINGH 2026.07.28 16:45 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/ judgment

CRM CRM CRM CRM-M-41154

41154-2026

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, wherein it has been alleged that the petitioner was the supplier of the contraband in question, which is per se not admissible in law, and, thus, the same cannot be the basis for implication of the petitioner. Learned counsel has iterated that the petitioner has nothing to do with the contraband in question as at the time of alleged occurrence, the petitioner was not even present at the spot. 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. 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 as a supplier of the contraband in question, which shows clear complicity of the petitioner in the offence in question. 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 inasmuch as multiple FIR(s), MAHAVIR SINGH 2026.07.28 16:45 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/ judgment

CRM CRM CRM CRM-M-41154

41154-2026

including under NDPS Act, are registered against him. 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/ 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. It is the case of the prosecution that co-accused of the petitioner was apprehended and 15 grams of Heroin/ smack was recovered. 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, who specifically attributed the petitioner the role of supplier of the contraband in question.

6.1. That apart, the petitioner himself has admitted in the averments made in the present petition that he is involved in multiple other FIR(s), though he has been acquitted in some of them. Even otherwise, perusal of the material on record shows that as many as 39 criminal cases have been registered against the petitioner, out of which 02 cases pertain to offences under the NDPS Act. The aforesaid criminal antecedents reveal that the petitioner is a habitual offender with a tendency to indulge in criminal activities. Such an extensive criminal history 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 MAHAVIR SINGH 2026.07.28 16:45 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/ judgment

CRM CRM CRM CRM-M-41154

41154-2026

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, particularly in view of his repeated involvement in criminal cases.

6.2. 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. 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 2026.07.28 16:45 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/ judgment

CRM CRM CRM CRM-M-41154

41154-2026

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.

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

11. 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 16:45 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/ judgment