CRM-M/31051/2026 of CHHINDER SINGH ALIAS SHHINDA SINGH Vs STATE OF PUNJAB on 2 July 2026

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

Date of Decision: 02.07.2026 CHHINDER SINGH ALIAS SHHINDA SINGH ....Petitioner V/s STATE OF PUNJAB

.…Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIKRAM AGGARWAL Present: Mr. Kuldip Singh, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Rahul Jindal, A.A.G., Punjab. *** VIKRAM AGGARWAL, J. (ORAL) Prayer in the present petition preferred by the petitioner under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short the “BNSS”) is for the grant of anticipatory bail in case FIR No.8, dated 02.04.2026 under Sections 21-C and 29 of NDPS Act and Sections 10, 11, 12 of Aircraft Act, 1934 registered at Police Station State Special Operation Cell Fazilka, District Fazilka.

2. On receipt of a secret information, that Jagdish Singh alias Disha and Gursewak Singh alias Gunna were related to two Pakistani smugglers and used to communicate with them through mobile phone internet apps and were smuggling heroin from Pakistan through drones and were further supplying it to smugglers in India, the police party apprehended Jagdish Singh alias Disha and Gursewak Singh alias Gunna on 02.04.2026. They were found to be in possession of 2 Kg heroin. The FIR in question was accordingly registered. It is the case of the prosecution that when Jagdish Singh alias Disha was interrogated, he suffered a disclosure statement to the effect that his maternal uncle Chhinder Singh alias Shhinda Singh (petitioner), who was a former Sarpanch was having close links with MANI KUMAR

Pakistani smugglers and he remained in communication with them through mobile phone internet based applications. It was stated that the said Chhinder Singh alias Shhinda Singh used to procure consignments of heroin from Pakistani smugglers through drones across the Indo-Pak Border and thereafter used to supply the same to unknown Indian smugglers as per the directions of the Pakistani smugglers. It was also disclosed by the said Jagdish Singh that the consignment which had been recovered from him and Gursewak Singh had also been ordered by Chhinder Singh after communicating with Pakistani smugglers and had been delivered through a drone at village Dhani Natha Singh Wala, Police Station Sadar Jalalabad, near the Indo-Pak border. Thereafter, on the asking of Chhinder Singh, both Jagdish Singh and Gursewak Singh had gone to collect the said consignment of the heroin. They were to deliver the heroin to Chhinder Singh after collecting it from the drone. On the basis of the said disclosure statement, the petitioner was arrayed as an accused.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been falsely implicated. He submits that he is an Ex-Sarpanch and has no role to play in the matter. He further submits that he has clean antecedents and no other case under the NPDS Act stands registered against him. He further submits that the petitioner is willing to join investigation and abide by the conditions imposed by the Court.

4. Per contra, learned State counsel has opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail. He submits that in such matters custodial interrogation is essential. He further states that three other FIRs under IPC and Arms Act as also Punjab Excise Act stand registered against the petitioner and trial is going on in all three cases.

5. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties. The allegations are extremely serious. In the disclosure statement suffered by Jagdish Singh, it was stated that the petitioner was in touch with Pakistani smugglers and used to smuggle heroin regularly. The present MANI KUMAR

contraband recovered from the two accused is also stated to have been smuggled at the instance of the petitioner. His antecedents are also not clean as he is involved in three other cases, though under IPC, Arms Act and the Excise Act. Be that as it may, this Court is of the considered opinion that custodial interrogation would be imperative, to elicit the truth and keeping in view the gravity of the allegations, there is no resaon to extend the concession of anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

6. That being so, the petition is found to be devoid of merit and is accordingly dismissed.

7. Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of. (VIKRAM AGGARWAL) JUDGE July 02, 2026 Mani Kumar Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No Whether reportable: Yes/No MANI KUMAR