IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of decision: 08.10.2025 Raju ....Petitioner V/s State of Haryana ....Respondent CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL Present: Mr. Vikas Bishnoi, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Gurmeet Singh, AAG Haryana.

*****

SUMEET GOEL, J. (Oral)

1. Present petition has been filed on behalf of the petitioner seeking grant of anticipatory/pre-arrest bail under Section 482 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (hereinafter to be referred as ‘BNSS’) in FIR No.313 dated 16.05.2025 registered for offence punishable under Section 18 of the NDPS Act at Police Station Sadar Thanesar, District Kurukshetra.

2. The gravamen of the FIR in question pertains to the alleged incident of illegal sale/purchase of the contraband. It was alleged that on 16.05.2025 Sub Inspector Sudesh Kumar from Crime Branch-1, Kurukshetra alongwith Head Constables Naresh Kumar, Sandeep Kumar and EASI Ishwar Singh were patrolling the area in a government vehicle (HR07GV-9810) driven by EASI Ishwar Singh. During patrolling, a secret informant met SI Sudesh Kumar and gave information that two persons namely Rajiv alias Ajay and Rakesh, both residents of village Anjani, District Bareilly (U.P.) were involved in sale and purchase of opium. As per the informant the aforesaid accused were currently waiting at Parakeet Pipli, where buses from Delhi stop, carrying a large quantity of opium.

Believing the information to be credible, co-accused Rajiv alias Ajay and Rakesh were apprehended with 02 KGs and 620 grams of opium in their possession. Thereafter, recovered contraband was taken into police possession vide separate recovery memo and accused were arrested after serving notice under Section 52 of the NDPS Act. The case property was seized and the accused were apprehended on the spot and produced before the Illaqa Magistrate. Consequently, a case was registered. On interrogation, the co-accused namely Rajiv @ Ajay suffered a disclosure statement implicating the present petitioner namely Raju, who had supplied the contraband to him. The recovered substances were seized in accordance with due legal procedure.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has iterated that from the bare perusal of the FIR clearly shows that the petitioner has not been named therein. Learned counsel has further iterated that the petitioner was neither apprehended from the spot nor alleged to have been present at the time of arrest of the co-accused Rajiv @ Ajay and Rakesh. It has been further submitted that the petitioner has been falsely implicated into the present case solely on the basis of the disclosure statement made by co-accused Rajiv @ Ajay which is inadmissible in evidence in view of Sections 24, 25 and 26 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. According to learned counsel, except from the said disclosure statement, there is no independent or corroborative evidence connecting the petitioner with the alleged offence. It has been further submitted that the alleged recovery of 02 Kgs and 620 grams of opium was effected only from the co-accused Rajiv @ Ajay and Rakesh not from the petitioner. Furthermore, the alleged recovery being marginally above the commercial quantity and not from the possession of the petitioner and hence the rigour of Section 37 of the NDPS Act is not attracted in the instant case. According to learned counsel, apart from the inadmissible disclosure statement, there is no material or reasonable ground available with the prosecution to connect the petitioner with the alleged offence. Learned counsel further asserts that nothing has been recovered from the possession of the petitioner and no further recovery is likely to be effected at his instance and thus, his custodial interrogation is neither warranted nor justified. Learned counsel further asserts that the petitioner has no intention of evading the process of law and undertakes to cooperate fully with the investigation. It is next submitted by the learned counsel that the