IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

113-2 CRM-M-63214-2025 (O&M) Date of decision : 25.03.2026 Sidharth @ Shidarth Jhinjha ... Petitioner Versus State of Punjab ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANISHA BATRA Present: Mr. Vikas Bishnoi, Advocate for the petitioner.

Ms. Sakshi Bakshi, AAG, Punjab.

****

MANISHA BATRA, J. (Oral)

1. The instant petition has been filed by the petitioner under Section 482 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short “BNSS”) for grant of anticipatory bail in case arising out of FIR No.96 dated 12.09.2024 registered under Section 21(c), 27 and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short “NDPS”) at Police Station Bahav Wala (Bahavwala), District Fazilka.

2. Brief facts of the case relevant for the purpose of disposal of the present petition are that on 12.09.2024, co-accused Vikramjeet Singh was apprehended by a police party and recovery of 513 grams of heroin was effected from his conscious possession. Since he could not produce any valid license or permit to keep in his possession the recovered contraband, he was formally arrested at the spot. Upon interrogation, he disclosed that he had purchased the recovered contraband from one Buta Singh and he was to sell the same to the present petitioner, Narinder Singh and Gurwinder Singh. On the basis of the same, the present petitioner and abovenamed persons were nominated in this case as accused. Apprehending his arrest, the petitioner moved an application for grant of anticipatory bail which has been dismissed by the Court of Learned Judge, Special Court, Fazilka, vide order dated 28.10.2025.

3. It is argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that he has been falsely implicated in this case on the basis of the disclosure statement of the co-accused which cannot be considered to be admissible in evidence. He is in no way connected with the recovery allegedly effected from the co- accused. The ingredients for commission of subject offences are not at all attracted qua him. His involvement in other cases cannot be made a ground for denying him the benefit of bail in the given circumstances. He is ready to join investigation. His custodial interrogation is not required. No recovery is to be effected from him. No useful purpose would be served by detaining him into custody. It is, thus, urged that the petition deserves to be allowed.

4. Per contra, learned State counsel has argued that the allegations against the petitioner are quite serious in nature. He was the prospective buyer of the recovered contraband. His antecedents are not clean. For the purpose of conducting thorough and proper investigation in the matter, the custodial interrogation of the petitioner is must. It is, therefore, stressed that the petition does not deserve to be allowed.

5. This Court has heard the rival submissions made by learned counsel for the parties at considerable length.

6. As per the allegations, the petitioner has been nominated as an accused in this case not on the basis of any direct recovery effected from him but primarily on the strength of disclosure statement made by co- accused Vikramjeet Singh on the allegation that he was the prospective buyer of the recovered contraband. At this stage, there is nothing on record to connect the petitioner either with the co-accused or with the subject crime. Though he is shown to be having criminal antecedents but that alone cannot be made a ground for denying him concession of bail in this case. Nothing has been brought on record to suggest that he is likely to abscond or tamper with evidence in case grant of bail to him. In the considered opinion of this Court, the custodial interrogation of the petitioner does not appear to be indispensable at this stage. His presence can be secured for the purpose of investigation by imposing appropriate conditions. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, this Court is of the considered opinion that the petitioner has made ou