220 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision 03.11.2025 NARYAN LAL BHOI ... Petitioner Versus STATE OF HARYANA ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASJIT SINGH BEDI Present: Mr. Kushager Goyal, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Viney Phogat, DAG, Haryana.

****

JASJIT SINGH BEDI, J.

The prayer in the present petition under Section 482 BNSS is for the grant of anticipatory bail in case bearing FIR No.201 dated 03.08.2025 registered under Sections 15(b) and 29 of NDPS Act at Police Station Jhajjar, District Jhajjar.

2. The brief facts of the case are that Ranjeet Kumar @ Rinku S/o Ramchanar and Nashruddin S/o Abdul Jaffar were apprehended while travelling in a truck. The recovery of 1130 gram doda and 135 grams Chura post was effected from their possession. Nasurddin disclosed the name of the present petitioner as the person who sold the contraband to the arrested accused.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that in the instant case, the petitioner has been named in the disclosure statement of his co- accused. As he has been named in the disclosure statement alone without any corroborative evidence, he is entitled to the concession of anticipatory bail. Reliance is placed on the judgments in the cases of Tofan Singh Versus State of Tamil Nadu, 2020 AIR (Supreme Court) 5592, Rakesh Kumar Singla Versus Union of India, 2021(1) RCR (Criminal) 704, Surinder Kumar Khanna Versus Intelligence Officer Directorate of Revenue Intelligence, 2018(3) RCR (Criminal) 954, State by (NCB) Bengaluru Versus Pallulabid Ahmad Arimutta & Anr. 2022(1) RCR (Criminal) 762, Sanjeev Chandra Agarwal & Anr. Versus Union of India 2021(4) RCR (Criminal) 590, Vijay Singh Versus The State of Haryana, bearing Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No.(s).1266/2023 decided on 17.05.2023 and Vikrant Singh Versus State of Punjab, CRM-M-39657-2020.

4. A status report dated 31.10.2025 by way of an affidavit of Surender Kumar, HPS, Asstt. Commissioner of Police, City Jhajjar, District Jhajjar has been filed on behalf of the State by the learned counsel for the State. The same is taken on record. He contends that the petitioner is a habitual offender. Apart from the present case, he has been involved in two other cases bearing FIR No.46 dated 14.02.2022, U/s 8 & 29 of NDPS Act, P.S. Rashmi District Chittorgarh and FIR No.111 dated 06.03.2024, U/s 8 & 29 of the NDPS Act, P.S. Pratapgarh. He, therefore, contends that the antecedents of the petitioner do not entitle him to the grant of anticipatory bail in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the present case.

5. I have heard the learned counsel for both the parties at length.

6. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Haryana Versus Samarth Kumar 2022 (3) RCR (Criminal) 991, held as under:-

“4. The High Court decided to grant pre-arrest bail to the respondents on the only ground that no recovery was effected from the respondents and that they had been implicated only on the basis of the disclosure statement of the main accused Dinesh Kumar. Therefore, reliance was placed by the High Court in the majority judgment of this Court in Tofan Singh v. State of Tamil Nadu reported in (2021) 4 SCC 1.

5. But, it is contended by the learned Additional Advocate General appearing on behalf of the State of Haryana that on the basis of the anticipatory bail granted to the respondents, the Special Court was constrained to grant regular bail even to the main accused-Dinesh Kumar and he jumped bail. Fortunately, the main accused-Dinesh Kumar has again been apprehended. According to the learned Additional Advocate General, the respondent in the second of these appeals is also a habitual offender.

6. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent in the first of these Appeals contends that the State is guilty of suppression of the vital fact that the respondent was granted regular bail after the charge-sheet was filed and that therefore, nothing survives in the appeal. But,we do not agree.

7. T