IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-48456-2025 (O&M)

Date of decision: 01.09.2025 Harpreet @ Ashu ...Petitioner Versus State of Punjab ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANISHA BATRA Present:- Mr. Simranjit Singh, Advocate for the petitioner.

Ms. Ramta Chowdhary, DAG, Punjab.

MANISHA BATRA, J. (Oral)

1. The instant one is the second petition that has been filed by the petitioner under Section 482 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short ‘BNSS’) for grant of anticipatory bail to him in case arising out of FIR No. 34 dated 14.02.2025 registered under Sections 21, 29 and 31 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substance Act, 1985 (for short ‘NDPS Act’) at Police Station Rama Mandi, District Police Commissionerate Jalandhar. The first petition, bearing CRM-M-17285-2025, was dismissed by this Court, vide order dated 28.03.2025.

2. The petitioner has been booked in this case on the basis of the disclosure statement suffered by co-accused Raj Pal @ Palli, who was apprehended by the police party on 14.02.2025 and from whom, firstly recovery of 52 grams of heroin and thereafter another recovery of 206 grams of heroin was effected. The operative part of the order dated 28.03.2025, whereby the first bail petition of the petitioner was dismissed by this Court, reads as under :

“7. The petitioner has been nominated in this case on the basis of the disclosure made by co-accused Raj Pal @ Palli, from whose custody, recovery of 52 grams of heroin was effected. For conducting thorough investigation in the matter, the custodial interrogation of the petitioner is must. So far as the ratio of law as laid down by Hon’ble Supreme Court in Tofan Singh’s case (supra) is concerned, the same stands clarified by Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of Haryana vs. Samarth Kumar : 2022(3) RCR (Criminal) 991, wherein it has been held that the advantage of decision of Tofan Singh’s case (supra) can be taken in regular bail application or at the time of final hearing after conclusion of trial and not while seeking concession of pre-arrest bail. The well settled proposition of law is that while considering an application for grant of anticipatory bail, the Court has to consider the nature of the offence, the role of the person, the likelihood of his influencing the course of investigation or tampering with evidence including intimidating witnesses. The powers under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. are to be exercised in extraordinary and sparing circumstances. More so, custodial interrogation of a suspected person is qualitatively more elicitation oriented than questioning a suspect who is well ensconced with a favourable order under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. Many useful information can be disinterred during custodial interrogation. It has also to be seen that an order of anticipatory bail does not operate as inroad in the normal legal procedure of criminal cases by the trial Court. Keeping in view the discussion as made above, I am of the considered opinion that no extraordinary or sparing circumstance entitling the petitioner to seek concession of pre-arrest bail has been made out rather his custodial interrogation is required for thorough investigation in the matter by the police. Accordingly, finding no merit, the petition is dismissed.”

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that since the challan qua the co-accused stands presented, therefore, the custodial interrogation of the petitioner is not required. With regard to question of maintainability of the second application for grant of pre-arrest bail, it is submitted by him that the same is very much maintainable as the change in circumstances justifies the filing of successive anticipatory bail applications by an accused. To fortify his argument, he has relied upon the judgments rendered by this Court in Rifakat vs. State of Haryana, CRM-M-30576-2023 decided on 03.07.2023 and Bhisham Singh vs. State of Haryana, CRM-M-

13315-2024, decided on 09.04.2024.

4.