220 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Reserved on: 15.01.2025 Pronounced on: 27.01.2025 Bintu ...Petitioner Versus State of Haryana …Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANOOP CHITKARA Present: Ms. Prabhjot Kaur, Advocate for the petitioner.

Ms. Harpreet Kaur, AAG, Haryana.

****

ANOOP CHITKARA, J.

FIR No. Dated Police Station Sections

216 08.09.2024 Bass, District Hisar 20 BC of NDPS Act

1. The petitioner apprehending arrest in the FIR captioned above has come up before this Court under Section 482 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, [BNSS], seeking anticipatory bail.

2. As per reply dated 31-10-2024, the accused has the following criminal antecedents:

Sr. No. FIR No. Date Offenses Police Station

1. 21 08.02.2024 20/51/85 of NDPS Act Bass, District Hisar 2. 319 20.11.2023 20/61/85 of NDPS Act Bass, District Hisar 3. 320 20.11.2023 20/61/85 of NDPS Act Bass, District Hisar

4. 216 06.08.2022 20/61/85 of NDPS Act Garhi

3. The facts and allegations are taken from the reply filed by the State. On Sep 08, 2024, based on prior information, the Police seized 25.265 kg of Ganja from the possession of co-accused Sunhari, the petitioner's mother. The Investigator claims to have complied with all the statutory requirements of the NDPS Act, 1985, and CrPC, 1973.

4. During custodial interrogation, the main accused, Sunhari, confessed before the Police officer that the petitioner had brought contraband for sale at home. Based on such confession before the police, the petitioner was arraigned as an accused. Apprehending arrest, he filed for anticipatory bail from the Sessions Court, which denied him bail.

Feeling aggrieved, he has invoked the concurrent jurisdiction of this Court under S. 482 BNSS, 2023.

5. The petitioner's counsel prays for bail by imposing any stringent conditions and contends that further pre-trial incarceration would cause an irreversible injustice to the petitioner and their family.

6. The State’s counsel opposes bail and refers to the reply.

7. It would be appropriate to refer to the following portions of the reply dated

31.10.2024, which read as follows:

“ That on dated 09.09.2024, during the course of investigation of the case, the co-accused namely Sunhari suffered her disclosure statement confessing her guilt and disclosed that about twenty days ago her son namely Bintu (Present Petitioner) had brought 30 Kg. ganja and out of them some was sold out by her to drug addict persons. She further stated that on 08.09.2024 she had been prepared for selling the alleged ganja and in the meantime, she had been apprehended by the police officials alongwith 25 Kg. 265gm. from her house corridor. Copy of disclosure statement of co-accused sunhari is annexed herewith as Annexure R- 1.

During the course of investigation, it has been found that present petitioner is directly involved in the commission of offence and co- accused Sunhari named the present petitioner in her disclosure statement during investigation that he had handed over the alleged Ganja 30 Kg. to co- accused namely Sunhari i.e. mother of present petitioner for selling and earn profit. It is pertinent to mention here that to trace out further source of the contraband the custodial interrogation of the present petitioner is very much required. It is specifically mentioned here that in the disclosure statement of co- accused Sunhari, the name of the present petitioner appeared as supplier of the contraband. Drugs are a menace to the society and it is imperative that entire nexus of persons involved in the drug trade are apprehended. So, the police have an absolute right to investigate a cognizable offence by taking the person in custody, if the police suspect that such a person is involved in the commission of cognizable offence. It is further submitted that custodial interrogation of the present petitioner-accused seems necessary to reveal the source from where the present petitioner had procured the alleged contraband as well as to identity of all the in