IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-7210-2026 (O&M) Date of decision: 09.02.2026 Jasveer Singh ....Petitioner Versus State of Punjab ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMAN CHAUDHARY *****

Present : Mr. Kamil Nagpal, Advocate for the petitioner *****

AMAN CHAUDHARY, J. (ORAL)

1. The present petition has been filed under Section 482 BNSS for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner in case FIR No.134 dated 01.10.2025, registered under Sections 21/29/85 of NDPS Act, at Police Station Mamdot, District Ferozepur.

2. Tersely, the facts reveal that on 01.10.2025, when police party were present at Bus Stand, Village Waryam Wala in connection with patrolling duty, secret informer had gave an information that one person namely Swaran Singh, who used to sell heroin, is waiting for customer at Mamdot to FF Road. Upon receiving this information, they went there and saw that a man was standing there and on suspicion, he was apprehended. After apprising of his rights, search was conducted and recovery of 1 kg and 61 grams of Heroin was effected. The requisite samples were drawn and sealed. Ruqa was sent, on the basis of which, an FIR was registered. Thereafter, he, in his disclosure statement, stated that the petitioner had sold the contraband to him. On the basis of this information, he has been nominated in the present case.

3. Learned counsel contends that the petitioner is merely implicated on the disclosure statement, as he was involved in another FIR along with the same co-accused. He neither has any connection with him nor any recovery has been effected from him, thus, in view of the judgment passed by Hon’ble the Supreme Court in the case of Tofan Singh vs. State of Tamil Nadu, (2021) 4 SCC 1, he seeks concession of anticipatory bail.

4. Learned State counsel submits that the petitioner is a habitual offender and has two more FIRs under NDPS Act and in the present case, commercial quantity of contraband i.e. 1 kg 61 grams of Heroin along with Rs.1,90,250/- as drug money has been effected from the said co-accused, who named him to be the supplier of the contraband. Custodial interrogation of the petitioner is required in the instant case to find the source of origin, the entire chain of supply of contraband and the other drug peddlers involved, if any.

5. Heard.

6. It would be to make a reference to the order of Hon’ble the Supreme Court in the case of Prabhulal vs. Central Bureau of Narcotics dismissing SLP (Crl.) 6744-2022 vide order dated 14.12.2022, affirming the order of Madhya Pradesh High Court wherein anticipatory bail of the petitioner, against whom two cases under NDPS Act were registered.

7. Though, there is no dispute that the name of the petitioner had surfaced in the disclosure statement of the above-mentioned co-accused, however, in this context also Hon’ble the Supreme Court in the case of State of Haryana vs. Samarth Kumar, 2022 (3) R.C.R. (Criminal) 991 had held thus:-

“7. The order of the Special Court granting regular bail to the respondents shows that the said order was passed in pursuance of the anticipatory bail granted by the High Court. Therefore, the same cannot be a ground to hold that the present appeals have become infructuous.

8. In cases of this nature, the respondents may be able to take advantage of the decision in Tofan Singh vs. State of Tamil Nadu (supra), perhaps at the time of arguing the regular bail application or at the time of final hearing after conclusion of the trial.

9. To grant anticipatory bail in a case of this nature is not really warranted. Therefore, we are of the view that the High Court fell into error in granting anticipatory bail to the respondents.

10. In view of the above, the appeals are allowed. The impugned orders are set-aside. As a consequence, the Appellant –State is entitled to take steps, in accordance with law.”

8. In Dinesh Chander vs. State of Haryana, CRM-M-5507-2025, a case involving recovery of commercial quantity of contraband from the co- acc