IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

214 Date of decision: 04.11.2025 GURPREET SINGH ALIAS GURI ....Petitioner Versus STATE OF HARYANA ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE YASHVIR SINGH RATHOR Present : Mr. Amit Choudhary, Advocate for the petitioner.

Ms. Vasundhara Dalal Anand, Sr. DAG, Haryana.

YASHVIR SINGH RATHOR. J.(Oral)

1. Prayer in this petition under Section 482 of BNSS, 2023 is for grant of anticipatory bail in case FIR No.41, dated 24.02.2025, registered at Police Station Sadar Tohana, District Fatehabad under Sections 15(c) of NDPS Act (Section 27-A of NDPS Act added later on).

2. On 08.09.2025, following order was passed:- “Prayer in this petition under Section 482 of BNSS, 2023 is for grant of anticipatory bail in case FIR No.41, dated 24.02.2025, registered at Police Station Sadar Tohana, District Fatehabad under Sections 15(c) of NDPS Act (Section 27-A of NDPS Act added later on).

Notice of motion. Mr. Ramesh Kumar Ambavta, DAG, Haryana accepts notice on behalf of the respondent-State. Both the parties have been heard.

As per prosecution case, a secret information was received by SI Hardayal Singh that Chhinda Ram and Vishal indulge in sale of poppy husk waste and they have kept huge quantity of poppy husk waste at the house of Vishal and in case, raid is conducted, they can be apprehended. Intimation under Section 42 of NDPS Act was prepared and sent to higher officers. Thereafter, the raid was conducted at the house of Vishal, from where 57kg 578gms of poppy husk waste was recovered. On interrogation, Chhinda Ram nominated the present petitioner as the supplier. Apprehending arrest, the petitioner applied for anticipatory bail, which has been dismissed by the trial Court.

Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case and the disclosure statement suffered by the co-accused vide which he has been nominated as an accused is not admissible in evidence and cannot be used against him and there is no other evidence against him except the said disclosure statement. Learned counsel next contended that petitioner is ready to join the investigation and to abide by the conditions that may be imposed by the Court and benefit of anticipatory bail be extended in his favour. In support of his contentions, learned counsel has cited the order dated 20.08.2025 passed by Hon’ble Supreme Court in Criminal Appeal No.3640/2025 @ SLP (Crl) No.9190/2025 titled as ‘Jugraj Singh Vs. State of Punjab’. Learned counsel also placed on file the order dated 03.04.2025 passed by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in CRM-M-18403-2025 in the aforesaid case vide which bail application of aforesaid Jugraj Singh was rejected.

On the other hand, learned State counsel, on instructions from SI Lalit Kumar, has opposed the bail and argued that petitioner is the supplier and he had contacted the co-accused through whatsapp call and his mobile phone is yet to be recovered to establish the trail of supply of the contraband, for which his custodial interrogation is essential and he does not deserve the concession of anticipatory bail.

In Jugraj Singh’s case (supra), 5kg heroin was recovered along with a sum of Rs.17.50 lakh drug money and main accused had nominated said Jugraj Singh as the supplier and the Hon’ble Supreme Court had ordered his release on anticipatory bail observing that mere disclosure statement is not sufficient to connect him with the alleged occurrence.

Adjourned to 04.11.2025 for filing status report.

Meanwhile, the petitioner is directed to join the investigation and in the event of his arrest, he shall be admitted to ad-interim bail on furnishing bail bonds to the satisfaction of the Arresting/Investigating Officer. However, the petitioner shall abide by the terms and conditions as envisaged under Section 482(2) BNSS, 2023.”

3. Today, learned State counsel has informed this Court that the petitioner has joined the investigation, in compliance of the order dated

08.09.