(210)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-65478-2025 Date of Decision:03.02.2026 PARDEEP ALIAS DEEPAD ... Petitioner Versus STATE OF HARYANA ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASJIT SINGH BEDI Present: Mr. Raman Chawla, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Vipul Sherwal, Asstt. A.G., Haryana.

****

JASJIT SINGH BEDI, J.

The prayer in the present petition under Section 482 of BNSS is for the grant of anticipatory bail in case bearing FIR No.162 dated 06.07.2025 registered under Sections 21-(B), 29/61/85 of NDPS Act at Police Station Uklana, District Hisar.

2. The brief facts of the case are that Manpreet wife of Amrik @ Amrika and Sunny were apprehended. 7.54 grams of heroin (Chitta) came to be recovered from Manpreet wife of Amrik @ Amrika. She disclosed that she had purchased the heroin from Sudesh @ Rani wife of Pardeep @ Deepad (petitioner). Sudesh @ Rani was arrested and disclosed that the heroin given to her by her husband had been sold by her to Manpreet.

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. On the other hand, the learned State counsel while referring to the reply dated 28.11.2025 contends that the petitioner is a habitual offender. Apart from the present case, he is involved in three other cases bearing FIR No.480 dated 14.07.2011 U/s 21 NDPS Act, P.S. City Rohtak, District Rohtak, FIR No.125 dated 28.07.2020 U/s 21 NDPS Act, P.S. City Narwana and FIR No.432 dated 25.10.2023 U/s 21 NDPS Act, P.S. City Narwana. 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. The order of the Special Court g