IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-12829-2026 Date of decision: 25.03.2026 CHHAMINDER SINGH ….Petitioner Versus STATE OF HARYANA ....Respondent CORAM:- HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE RUPINDERJIT CHAHAL Present:- Mr. Saurabh Singla, Advocate for the petitioner.

Ms. Shaveta Sanghi, DAG Haryana.

..…

RUPINDERJIT CHAHAL, J. (ORAL)

1. Prayer in the present petition filed under Section 482 of the BNSS, 2023 is for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner in case FIR No.36 dated 27.01.2026 registered under Sections 21(b), 61, 85 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (Sections 27-C, 29 of the NDPS Act added later on) at Police Station Kalanwali, District Sirsa. 2. Brief facts of the present case as per the prosecution are that on 27.01.2026, ASI Gurmeet Kaur, along with her fellow police officials was on a patrolling duty and on the basis of suspicion apprehended one Gursewak Singh @ Chamkila who was found in conscious possession of 06 grams 460 mg of Heroin. Initially, the FIR in question was registered against the said co-

accused.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case. He further contends that neither the petitioner was named in the FIR nor has any concern with the said offence. It has also been contended that the petitioner has been nominated as an accused only on the basis of the disclosure statement made by co-accused. No recovery is to be effected from the petitioner. Learned counsel has further submitted that the petitioner is ready and willing to join the investigation as and when called upon to do so by the investigating agency.

4. After registration of the FIR, investigation has been initiated and is under way. Apprehending his arrest, the petitioner had moved an application for grant of anticipatory bail which has been dismissed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, (Fast Track Special Court), Sirsa, vide order dated 25.02.2026.

5. On the other hand, learned State counsel has filed the status report and while relying to the same, has opposed the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail, by submitting that the allegations levelled against the petitioner are serious in nature. She argued that role of the petitioner is that he is the supplier of the recovered contraband and it has been clearly established that co-accused Rana Singh and the petitioner were in regular touch with each other. He further argued that custodial interrogation of the petitioner is required to enquire about his role in the drug nexus. Hence, she prays for dismissal of the petition.

6. Heard.

7. In the present case, the allegations against the petitioner are serious in nature. As per the prosecution, the contraband i.e. Heroin which was recovered from co-accused persons was supplied to them by the petitioner. Moreover, there are CDRs connecting the petitioner to the co- accused. The present petitioner is also alleged to be member of drug nexus and in order to crack the same his custodial interrogation is required.

8. Considering the gravity of the allegations, the custodial interrogation of the petitioner is required for fair and effective investigation in the matter.

9. It is befitting to mention here that while considering a 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 wide impact of such alleged iniquities on the society. It would be apposite to refer herein judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in ‘State Vs. Anil Sharma’, (1997) 7 SCC 187, wherein it has been held 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. I