##PAGE1##

CRM-M-15759-2026 (O&M) -1-

109

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

-.-

CRM-M-15759-2026 (O&M)

Decided on:-23.03.2026

Nikhlesh Kumar ....Petitioner

VERSUS

State of Haryana ....Respondent

CORAM : HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MANDEEP PANNU Present: Mr. Deepam Raghav, Advocate for the petitioner.

-.-

MANDEEP PANNU J. (Oral)

1. This is the first petition filed under Section 482 of BNSS/438 Cr.P.C for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner in FIR No.422, dated 01.12.2025, registered under Section 22(c) and 29 of NDPS Act, at Police Station Sadar

Fatehabad, District Fatehabad.

2. Briefly stated, the prosecution case is that on 01.12.2025, a police party headed by SI Jaiveer Singh, on the basis of secret information, apprehended co-accused Deepak Kumar Indoriya and Dinesh Kumar, and recovered 450 strips (each containing 08 capsules, i.e. total 3600 capsules) of NRX (Dicyclomine Hydrochloride, Tramadol Hydrochloride and Acetaminophen) weighing 1 kg 944

grams, in the presence of DSP Jagdish Kajla.

3. During investigation, the arrested co-accused disclosed that the contraband had been purchased from co-accused Govind, who, upon arrest, further disclosed that he had procured the same from co-accused Subhash. Subsequently, co-accused Subhash, Ashish Swami and Sandeep Kumar were arrested and they, in

TRIPTI SAINI

2026.03.24 09:38 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

CRM-M-15759-2026 (O&M) -2-

turn, suffered disclosure statements implicating the present petitioner as one of the

suppliers. The petitioner is yet to be arrested.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been falsely implicated and his name has surfaced only in the disclosure statements of co-accused. Such disclosure statements are inadmissible in evidence. No recovery has been effected from the petitioner. The petitioner is ready to join investigation

and cooperate with the police. 5. Notice of motion.

6. Mr. Sushil Bhardwaj, Addl. A.G. Haryana, accepts notice. He opposed the present bail petition and submitted that the allegations against the petitioner are serious in nature and relate to supply of commercial quantity of contraband. The petitioner is part of a chain of suppliers in an organised drug network. Apart from disclosure statements, the Call Detail Records (CDR) of the petitioner match with those of co-accused, thereby providing corroborative material. Custodial interrogation of the petitioner is necessary to recover the

mobile phone, unearth the entire network and identify other persons involved.

7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

8. The recovery effected in the present case is of commercial quantity, thus attracting the rigours of Section 37 of the NDPS Act. The allegations against the petitioner are not merely of possession but of being a supplier forming part of a chain in illicit trafficking. Although the name of the petitioner has surfaced in the disclosure statements of co-accused, it is not the sole material against him. The State has placed reliance on Call Detail Records, which prima facie indicate connectivity between the petitioner and co-accused, thereby lending corroboration

to the prosecution version.

TRIPTI SAINI

2026.03.24 09:38 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

CRM-M-15759-2026 (O&M) -3-

9. The investigation is still in progress and custodial interrogation of the petitioner appears to be necessary to unearth the larger conspiracy, trace the source of contraband and identify other members of the network. In cases involving commercial quantity and organised drug trafficking, a stricter approach is

warranted.

10. At this stage, this Court does not find reasonable grounds to believe that the petitioner is not guilty of the alleged offence or that he is unlikely to

commit any offence while on bail.

11. In view of the above, this Court does not find it to be a fit case for

grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

12. Accordingly, the pres