CRM-M/39749/2026 of KAMAL SINGH Vs STATE OF HARYANA on 21 July 2026

1. Bharatiya BNSS’) f bearing F punishabl Station Ci

petition s withdrawn after discl Court spe the High C as under:- -39749-2026 THE HIGH COURT OF PUN CHANDIG

ngh

V/s Haryana

decision: 21.07.2026 Uploading : 21.07.2026 M: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE Mr. Surjeet Singh Chahal, Ad (through Video Conference). Ms. Mahima Yashpal Singla, ***** T GOEL, J. (Oral) The present petition is the se a Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for grant of pre-arrest/anticipat FIR No.0140 dated 13.05.20 le under Sections 21(b) and 2 ity Tohana, District Fatehabad. The petitioner had earlier ap seeking anticipatory bail. The n vide order dated 16.07.2026 w losing his complete antecedents ecifically directed the petitioner Court Lawyers Welfare Fund. T -

NJAB AND HARYANA AT ARH

CRM-M-39749-2026

....Petitioner

....Respondent SUMEET GOEL dvocate for the petitioner . , Senior DAG Haryana.

econd attempt under Section 482 3 (hereinafter to be referred as ‘ tory bail to the petitioner in ca 026, registered for the offenc 27-A of the NDPS Act at Pol pproached this Court by way o said petition was dismissed with liberty to file a fresh petiti

s. While granting such liberty, t to deposit costs of Rs.5,000/- w The relevant part of said order rea

2 of the ase ces lice of a as ion this with ads AJAY KUMAR

CRM-M-

of anticip 18.07.202

2. of secret i Yadav ne After com conducted possession Yadav s contraban commissi

3. petitioner question. petitioner received merely on in the ey -39749-2026 “2. Learned counsel for the p in hand with liberty to file afre disclosing complete antecedents o

3. Ordered accordingly, subj with the High Court Lawyers We thus:

Account No.65018692589

IFSC Code: SBIN0050306

Branch Code: 50306

Bank: State Bank of India,

4. Pending application(s), if Thereafter, the present petitio patory/pre-arrest bail has been

26. The gravamen of the FIR in information, a police party appre ear Hafed Godowns, on the roa mpliance of the statutory provisio d and 52.92 grams of heroin w

n. During the course of investi uffered a disclosure stateme nd had been supplied to him by on basis. Learned counsel for the r is innocent and has been fa Learned counsel has furthe r does not figure either in the by the police. The entire cas n the disclosure statement of the yes of law and cannot form th petitioner seeks to withdraw the petit esh on the same cause of action af of the petitioner. ject to deposit a sum of ₹5,000/- as co elfare Fund, Bank details whereof re

6; , High Court Branch, Chandigarh any, shall also stand disposed of” on i.e. the second petition for gr n preferred by the petitioner n question reflects that on the ba ehended co-accused namely Luc ad leading to Raj Nagar, Toha ons of the NDPS Act, a search w was allegedly recovered from igation, co-accused namely Luc ent alleging that the recover y the present petitioner for sale petitioner has iterated that alsely implicated into the FIR er iterated that the name of FIR or in the secret informati se against the petitioner is bas e co-accused which is inadmissi he sole basis for his implicati

tion after osts eads ant on asis cky ana. was his cky red on the in the ion sed ble on. AJAY KUMAR

CRM-M-

According petitioner name of falsely im counsel h petitioner connect h earlier an petition According anteceden merits. It interrogat recovered intention with the i ready to j by sendin submissio

4. anticipato recovery further ite petitioner Furthermo petitioner -39749-2026 g to learned counsel, a bare re r has no connection whatsoeve the petitioner was subsequentl mplicate him without any cogen as emphasized that that no contr r and there is no independent him with the alleged offence. It h nticipatory bail petition was with after disclosing the complete g to learned counsel, the pe nts in the present petition and, th t has been further argued tha tion of the petitioner as no inc d from him. Learned counsel a of evading the process of law investigation. Learned counsel h oin the investigation and hence ng him behind the bars. On ons, the grant of anticipatory bail Per contra, learned State c ory bail to the petitioner by argu of 52 grams 92 milligrams of H erated that during the course o r surfaced on the basis of dis ore, the investigation has re r in the supply of contraband to eading of the FIR shows that er with the alleged offence. T ly introduced only to harass a nt or material evidence. Learn raband has been recovered from t material available on record has been further contended that hdrawn with liberty to file a fre e antecedents of the petition etitioner has now disclosed herefore, deserves consideration at there is no need for custod criminating material remains to asserts that the petitioner has and undertakes to cooperate fu has contended that the petitioner no useful purpose would be serv the basis of the aforemention l is entreated for. counsel has opposed the grant uing that the present case involv Heroin. Learned State counsel h of investigation, the name of sclosure statement of co-accus evealed the involvement of o the co-accused and his custod

the The and ned the to the esh ner. his on dial be no ully r is ved ned of ves has the ed. the dial AJAY KUMAR

CRM-M-

interrogat unearthing in the ille stage may the offenc drug traff most resp concessio hand is pr

5. gone throu

6. preferred 16.07.202 the compl to supply case, thou during the made by the petitio accused f implicated of the ND well as ill indicates engaged i -39749-2026 tion is necessary for tracing the g the entire chain of supply and egal drug trade. Furthermore, gr y seriously hamper the ongoing ce, the larger public interest in ficking and the potential threat t pectfully submitted that the on of anticipatory bail. Accordin rayed for. I have heard the learned cou ugh the available record of the c Indubitably, the first petitio by the petitioner was dismisse 26 with specific liberty to file a lete antecedents. The allegations of narcotic substances to the c ugh the petitioner was not named e course of investigation on the co-accused namely Lucky Yada oner is that he has supplied th for further sale on commission d for the commission of offence DPS Act with specific allegatio licit trafficking of contraband su the involvement of the petitio in the illegal distribution of psyc e source of the narcotic substan identifying other persons involv ranting bail to the petitioner at t investigation. Given the gravity nvolved in curbing the menace to the fair conduct of the trial, it petitioner does not deserve ngly, the dismissal of the petition unsel for the rival parties and ha case. on (for grant of anticipatory ba ed as withdrawn by this Court fresh petition only after disclosi s raised against the petitioner rel co-accused. As per the prosecuti d in the FIR but his name surfac e basis of the disclosure statem av. The specific allegation agai he heroin recovered from the c n basis. The petitioner has be e(s) punishable under Section 27 ons of facilitating the financing ubstances. The investigation so oner in a well-organized netwo chotropic substances. The stand

nce, ved this y of of t is the n in ave ail) on ing late ion ced ent inst co- een 7-A as far ork, d of AJAY KUMAR

CRM-M-

the invest of the pet other pote

7. the petitio narcotic s this nasce the stage menace o petitioner It is befit anticipato individual reckon wi the accus impact of regard is titled as S the Suprem -39749-2026 tigating agency before this Cour titioner is necessary to unravel ential co-conspirators. The nature of the allegation oner being part of a larger nexu substances, raises serious concer ent stage of the investigation. Gi of investigation and the overarch of narcotic drug trafficking, th r does not merit the concession o tting to mention here that whil ory bail, the Court has to e l rights and protecting societa ith the magnitude and nature of sed; the need for fair and free f such alleged iniquities on soci being made to the dicta passe State v. Anil Sharma, (1997) 7 S me Court held as under, relevant

“6. We find force in the submissi qualitatively more elicitation-orient well-ensconced with a favourable or case like this, effective interrogation advantage in disinterring many usefu would have been concealed. Success suspected person knows that he is arrest bail order during the time he in such a condition would reduce t custodial interrogation is fraught rt is that the custodial interrogati the larger conspiracy and ident ns, coupled with the possibility us engaged in the unlawful trade rns that cannot be brushed aside iven the seriousness of the offen hing public interest in deterring his Court is of the view that of anticipatory bail at this junctu le considering a plea for grant equilibrate between safeguardi al interest(s). The Court ought f the offence; the role attributed investigation as also far reachi iety. A profitable reference in t ed by the Hon’ble Supreme Co SCC 187 : 1997 SCC (Cri) 103 t whereof reads as under: ion of CBI that custodial interrogation ted than questioning a suspect who rder under Section 438 of the Code. I n of a suspected person is of tremend ul informations and also materials wh s in such interrogation would elude if well protected and insulated by a p is interrogated. Very often interrogat to a mere ritual. The argument that with the danger of the person be

ion tify of e of e at nce, the the ure. of ing to d to ing this ourt 39], n is o is In a dous hich f the pre- tion the eing AJAY KUMAR

CRM-M-

facie case come on reasonabl appropria necessaril

8. petitioner milieu of petitioner truth. The

9. of opinion

10. July 21, 2 Ajay

-39749-2026 subjected to third-degree methods n argument can be advanced by all a has to presume that responsible poli a responsible manner and that thos offences would not conduct themselve At this stage, there is no ma e is not made out against the p record and the preliminary in e basis for the accusation of ate to grant anticipatory bail ly cause impediment in effective Accordingly, this Court is o r does not deserve the concession f the case in hand. Moreove r may be necessary for an effect e present petition is, thus, devoid Nothing said hereinabove sh n upon merits of the case/investig Pending application(s), if any

Whether speaking/reasoned: Whether reportable:

need not be countenanced, for, such ccused in all criminal cases. The Co ice officers would conduct themselves e entrusted with the task of disinterr es as offenders.” aterial on record to hold that pri petitioner. The material which h nvestigation, appear to establish f the petitioner. Thus, it is n to the petitioner, as it wou e investigation. of the considered opinion that n of anticipatory bail in the fact er, custodial interrogation of tive investigation & to unravel d of merits and is hereby dismisse hall be deemed to be an expressi gation. y, shall also stand disposed off. (SUMEET GOEL)

JUDGE

Yes/No

Yes/No

an ourt s in ring ima has h a not uld the ual the the ed. ion AJAY KUMAR