IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Decided on :28.10.2025 ANIL ……Petitioner(s)

Versus STATE OF HARYANA ……Respondent(s)

CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL Present:- Mr. Aakash Juneja, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Deepak Kumar Grewal, DAG, Haryana.

****

SUMEET GOEL, JUDGE

1. Petitioner prays for grant of pre-arrest bail in FIR No.2 dated 01.01.2025 registered under Sections 21/29 of the NDPS Act at Police Station City Rohtak.

2. On 05.08.2025, the following order was passed:

“Petitioner prays for grant of pre-arrest bail in FIR No.2 dated

01.01.2025 registered under Sections 21/29 of the NDPS Act at Police Station City Rohtak.

Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner was neither named in the FIR nor he was apprehended at the spot. Rather, during the course of investigation, Sanjay, co-accused, disclosed the name of the petitioner as an accused and such statement made in the police custody has weak evidentiary value. He further submits that the petitioner is a first offender and was never involved in any other criminal activities.

Notice of motion.

On the asking of Court, Mr. Rajinder Kumar Banku, Sr. DAG, Haryana accepts notice on behalf of the respondent-State.

List on 01.10.2025.

In the meantime, the petitioner is directed to join the investigation. In the event of arrest, he shall be released on interim bail to the satisfaction of arresting/investigating officer subject to the conditions envisaged under Section 438 (2) Cr.P.C./482 (2) of BNSS, 2023”

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the petitioner has been falsely implicated into the FIR in question. Learned counsel has further argued that there is no link or connection between the petitioner and the co- accused (from whom the contraband is alleged to have been recovered) and the petitioner is sought to be implicated only on the basis of disclosure statement of the co-accused from whom the contraband is alleged to have been recovered. Learned counsel has further submitted that petitioner has joined the investigation and has cooperated therein. On the strength of these arguments, learned counsel has sought for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

4. Learned State counsel (on instructions from ASI Anil) has submitted that the petitioner has joined investigation. He has, however, opposed the grant of anticipatory bail while raising submissions in tandem with the reply dated 10.10.2025 filed on behalf of the State and, thus, submitted that the FIR in question is under NDPS Act of 1985, the petitioner ought not to be extended the concession of anticipatory bail.

5. I have heard learned counsel for the rival parties and have perused the available record.

6. Before delving further into the merits of the case in hand, it would be profitable to refer herein to a judgment passed by this Court in the case titled as Ashu Vs. State of Punjab(CRM-M-54032-2024), which reads as under:

“7. At this juncture, it would be apposite to refer herein to a judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court titled as ‘Tofan Singh vs. State of Tamil Nadu, AIR 2020 Supreme Court 5592’, relevant whereof reads as under:

"155. We answer the reference by stating: (i) That the officers who are invested with powers under section 53 of the NDPS Act are "police officers within the meaning of section 25 of the Evidence Act, as a result of which any confessional statement made to them would be barred under the provisions of section 25 of the Evidence Act, and cannot be taken into account in order to convict an accused under the NDPS Act (ii) That a statement recorded under section 67 of the NDPS Act cannot be used as a confessional statement in the trial of an offence under the NDPS ACL"

More recently, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in a judgment titled as ‘Smt. Najmunisha, Abdul Hamid Chandmiya @ Ladoo Bapu Vs. State of Gujrat, Narcotics Control Bureau’ 2024 INSC 290’, has reiterated the ratio decidendi of the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Tofan S