IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

211 CRM-M-40865-2025 (O&M)

Date of decision: 12.09.2025 Bintu Ram ...Petitioner Versus State of Haryana ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANISHA BATRA Present:- Mr. Sauhard Singh, Advocate for the petitioner.

Ms. Himani Arora, DAG, Haryana.

MANISHA BATRA, J. (Oral)

1. Prayer in this petition, filed under Section 482 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short ‘BNSS’), is for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner in FIR No. 357 dated 14.07.2025, registered under Sections 18(c) and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short ‘NDPS Act’) at Police Station Kurukshetra University, District Kurukshetra.

2. Brief facts of the case relevant for the disposal of the present petition are that on 14.07.2025, on the basis of a secret information, co-accused Sandeep Kumar @ Deepu was apprehended by a police party and recovery of 251 grams of opium was effected from him. Upon interrogation, he disclosed that the recovered contraband was supplied to him by the present petitioner. On the basis of the same, the petitioner has been nominated in this case as an accused. Apprehending his arrest, the petitioner had moved an application for grant of anticipatory bail before the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kurukshetra but the same had been dismissed, vide order dated 25.07.2025.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case. He was neither named in the FIR nor was found at the spot. He has been involved in this case on the basis of the disclosure statement made by the co-accused, which is not admissible in evidence. There is nothing on record to connect the petitioner with the subject crime. He is ready to join the investigation. No useful purpose would be served by detaining him in custody. Therefore, it is urged that the petition deserves to be allowed.

4. Status report has been filed by the respondent-State. Learned Deputy Advocate General, Haryana has argued that keeping in view the gravity of the allegations levelled against the petitioner as well as his criminal antecedents, he is not entitled to get benefit of bail. His custodial interrogation is required for conducting proper investigation in the matter. Hence, it is urged that the petition is liable to be dismissed.

5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties at considerable length and have also perused the material placed on record.

6. The allegations against the petitioner are that he was the supplier of the contraband recovered from the above named co-accused. The petitioner has criminal antecedents as he is shown to be involved in one more case of similar nature. A perusal of the status report reveals that the petitioner was in constant touch over phone with the co-accused during relevant time. Recovery of his phone is to be effected from him. It has also been found during investigation that an amount of Rs.1500/- has been transferred from the bank account of mother of the co-accused to the bank account of wife of the petitioner, which prima facie suggests his involvement in the crime. The allegations against him are quite serious. No sparing or extraordinary circumstance has been made out in his favour for grant of pre-arrest bail. Rather, his custodial interrogation is required for conducting proper investigation in the matter and also for effecting further recovery of the contraband, if any. 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 482 of BNSS are to be exercised in extraordinary and sparing circumstances. More so, custodial interrogation of a suspected person is qualitatively more elicitation orient