IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

316 Date of decision: 01.12.2025 SHINDER SINGH @ SINDER ….Petitioner Versus STATE OF HARYANA ....Respondent CORAM:- HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE RUPINDERJIT CHAHAL Present:- Mr. Kushager Goyal, Advocate for the petitioner.

Ms. Shaveta Sanghi, DAG, Haryana.

*****

RUPINDERJIT CHAHAL, J. (ORAL)

1. Through the instant petition filed under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (For short “BNSS”), the petitioner seeks anticipatory bail in case FIR No.388 dated 27.10.2025 registered under Section 21(b) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (Section 27-A of the NDPS Act added later on), at Police Station Sadar Sirsa, District Sirsa.

2. On 18.11.2025, the following order was passed: -

“Prayer in the present petition filed under Section 482 of the BNSS, 2023 is for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner in case FIR No.388 dated 27.10.2025 registered under Section 21(b) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (Section 27-A of the NDPS Act added later on), at Police Station Sadar Sirsa, District Sirsa (Annexure P-1).

Brief facts as per the prosecution case are that on

27.10.2025 ASI Sandeep while on patrolling duty apprehended co-accused Tirlok Singh and Sunil who were found in conscious possession of 20.60 grams of Heroin and further disclosed that the recovered contraband was purchased by them from the present petitioner Hence, the present FIR.

Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case. He further contends that the petitioner was not present at the spot and he has no concern with the recovered contraband. It has also been contended that the petitioner has been nominated as an accused only on the basis of the disclosure statement made by co-accused Tirlok Singh and Sunil Kumar. Apart from the disclosure statement, there is no other evidence to connect the petitioner with the offence in question and it is a trite law that disclosure statement of the co-accused during his custodial interrogation is not admissible. No recovery is to be effected from the petitioner. Learned counsel has further submitted that the petitioner is ready and willing to join the investigation as and when called upon to do so by the investigating agency.

Notice of motion.

On asking of the Court, Mr. Mohit Chaudhary, AAG Haryana accepts notice on behalf of respondent-State and seeks time to file status report in the matter.

Adjourned to 29.11.2025.

In the meantime, the petitioner is directed to join investigation within a week from today and would appear as and when required by the Investigating Officer and cooperate with the Investigating Agency. In the event of arrest, he shall be admitted to interim bail on furnishing of bail/surety bonds to the satisfaction of Arresting/Investigating Officer. The petitioner shall also abide by the conditions as envisaged under Section

482(2) of BNSS, 2023”

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in compliance with the order dated 18.11.2025 passed by this Court, the petitioner has joined the investigation. He has further argued that there is no connection between the petitioner and the co-accused and that the petitioner is sought to be implicated only on the basis of the disclosure statement of the co-accused.

4. Learned counsel for the State, (on instructions from SI Ajeet Singh), has submitted that the petitioner has joined the investigation in terms of interim order/protection earlier afforded to the petitioner and is no longer required for further custodial interrogation. She has however submitted that since the FIR in question is under the NDPS Act of 1985, the petitioner ought not to be extended the concession of anticipatory bail.

5. On a specific query put by this Court to the learned State counsel as to whether, apart from the disclosure statement, any material has been found during investigation to connect the petitioner with the recovered contr