Anticipatory bail in NDPS cases is declined where there is prima facie material linking the accused via disclosure statements and substantial unexplained financial transactions with co-accused, necessitating custodial interrogation to uncover the wider narcotics conspiracy.

SUMEET GOEL, J. (ORAL)

Present petition has been filed under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short ‘BNSS’) (earlier Section 438 Cr. P.C.) for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner, in case bearing FIR No.281 dated 12.07.2025, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 22(C), 29, 61 of the NDPS Act, 1985, at Police Station City Palwal, District Palwal, Haryana.

2. The gravamen of the FIR in question is that the petitioner is an accused of being involved in an FIR pertaining to NDPS Act involved alleged recovery of 15 injections of Buprenorphine 2 ML each, 15 injections of Diazepam 2ML each and 06 injections of Avil from co-accused, namely, Harender. Said co-accused, in his disclosure, named co-accused, namely Udaybhan to be a person from whom Harender had purchased the recovered injections. Further, co-accused – Udaybhan, in his disclosure, nominated another co-accused, namely, Shahrukh to be a person from whom he had purchased the recovered contraband. Thereafter, Co-accused – Shahrukh nominated the petitioner in this case stating him a person from whom Shahrukh had purchased the recovered contraband.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the petitioner has been falsely implicated into the FIR in question. Learned counsel has argued that mandatory provisions of the NDPS Act have not scrupulously been complied with and, thus, the prosecution case suffers from inherent defects. Learned counsel has argued that the petitioner has not been named in the FIR in question. Learned counsel has further argued that the petitioner has been implicated solely on the basis of disclosure statement co-accused – Shahrukh alleging that he had purchased the contraband from the petitioner, which is per se not admissible in law, and, thus, the same cannot be the basis for implication of the petitioner. Learned counsel has iterated that the petitioner has nothing to do with the contraband in question. Learned counsel has further argued that there is not even an iota of evidence, available with the prosecution, to show complicity of the petitioner in the offence in question. Learned counsel has further iterated that alleged transactions between the petitioner and co-accused, namely, Shahrukh pertain to the year 2024; said transactions have no nexus or proximity with the alleged offence, and therefore, the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the FIR in question.

3.1. Learned counsel has further argued that during pendency of the petition in hand, vide order dated 04.02.2026, the petitioner has been granted concession of interim bail and pursuant thereto, the petitioner has joined investigation and cooperated therein.

3.2. Learned counsel has argued that nothing is to be recovered from the petitioner. Learned counsel has further iterated that the petitioner is ready and willing to join investigation. On the basis of the aforementioned submissions, grant of the instant petition is prayed for.

4. Per contra, learned State counsel, while raising submissions in tandem with the reply by way of an affidavit dated 07.03.2026, has opposed the grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner by arguing that allegations raised against the petitioner are serious in nature. The relevant of the said reply reads thus:

“13. That the petitioner has been joined in the investigation by the investigating agency but he did not cooperate with the investigating agency. He failed to disclose from where he had procured the recovered injections and supplied them to accused Shahrukh. He is a habitual offender and has earlier been apprehended as a source in another case involving supp