Punjab and Haryana High Court
CRM-M/33378/2026 of BALKARAN SINGH Vs STATE OF HARYANA on 15 July 2026
of 2026 (O&M) 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the quantity allegedly recovered was non commercial. He further submits that the house from where recovery was effected, did not belong to the petitioner and the lady namely Manpreet Kaur was not his wife. Petitioner had
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
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.
REEMA SAINI 2026.07.15 16:53 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court, Chandigarh
2 CRM-M-33378 of 2026 (O&M)
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the quantity allegedly recovered was non commercial. He further submits that the house from where recovery was effected, did not belong to the petitioner and the lady namely Manpreet Kaur was not his wife. Petitioner had been falsely involved on account of party faction in the village in connivance with Shamsher Singh who was on enemical terms with him. No raid was conducted in his house nor there was any identification of the house or the lady. Petitioner, therefore, deserved to be released on anticipatory bail.
4. Learned State counsel accepts notice and submits that statement of the lady found in the house namely Manpreet Kaur was recorded. She stated the Poppy husk belonged to her husband Balkaran Singh. Custodial interrogation of the petitioner would be required to trace out the source of contraband and it was not a fit case to allow anticipatory bail.
5. Petitioner is alleged to have retained in his possession 4 kgs 895 grams of Poppy Husk. Though recovery has been effected from his house in his absence, he has been booked on statement of his wife. There are no extraordinary circumstance made out to extend the benefit of anticipatory bail. Investigation of the case is in progress and custodial interrogation of petitioner is necessary for proper, effective and fair investigation. Grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner would seriously prejudice the course of investigation and the statutory powers of the police. The petition for anticipatory bail is accordingly dismissed. All the pending miscellaneous applications, if any, stand disposed of.
(SHALINI SINGH NAGPAL) 15.07.2026
JUDGE reema Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes Whether reportable : No REEMA SAINI 2026.07.15 16:53 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court, Chandigarh