IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANAAT CHANDIGARH Nishant ….Petitioner versus State of Haryana ….Respondent Date of Decision: February 09, 2026 Date of Uploading: February 09, 2026 CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL Present:- Mr. Sanjeev Majra, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Gurmeet Singh, AAG Haryana.

*****

SUMEET GOEL, J. (ORAL)

Present petition has been filed under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short ‘BNSS’) for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner, in case bearing FIR No.38 dated 01.02.2026, registered for the offences punishable under Section 21(a) of the NDPS Act, 1985, registered at Police Station Pundri, District Kaithal.

2. The gravamen of the FIR in question is that the petitioner along with his co-accused fled away after seeing the police party, leaving behind their car bearing registration No.HR70A-4931, and upon search thereof, 3.96 grams of chitta was recovered.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the petitioner has been falsely implicated into the FIR in question. Learned counsel has argued that mandatory provisions of the NDPS Act have not scrupulously been complied with and, thus, the prosecution case suffers from inherent defects. Learned counsel has iterated that the petitioner has nothing to do with the contraband, which has been allegedly recovered from the car in question. Learned counsel has further argued that there is no evidence available with the prosecution to show complicity of the petitioner in the offence in question.

3.1. Learned counsel has argued that nothing is to be recovered from the petitioner. Learned counsel has further iterated that the petitioner is ready and willing to join investigation. On the basis of the aforementioned submissions, grant of the instant petition is prayed for.

4. On advance service of copy of petition, learned State counsel appears and has opposed the grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner by arguing that allegations raised against the petitioner are serious in nature. Learned State counsel has argued that the car from which 3.96 grams of chitta has been recovered belongs to the petitioner. Learned State counsel has further argued that, investigation, in the present case, is still under way and the petitioner is yet to be arrested. Given these circumstances, custodial interrogation of the petitioner is indispensable. Learned State counsel submits that, in case, the petitioner is accorded concession of anticipatory bail, there is all likelihood that he may abscond from the process of justice as also attempt to influence witnesses. It is therefore, submitted that the present petition is devoid of merit and is liable to be dismissed.

5. I have heard the learned counsel for the rival parties and have gone through the available record of the case.

6. It would be apposite to refer herein to a judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court titled as Kishor Vishwasrao Patil vs. Deepak Yashwant Patil and another passed in SLP(Crl) No.1125-2022, relevant whereof reads as under:

“74. Ordinarily, arrest is a part of the process of the investigation intended to secure several purposes. There may be circumstances in which the accused may provide information leading to discovery of material facts and relevant information. Grant of anticipatory bail may hamper the investigation. Pre-arrest bail is to strike a balance between the individual's right to personal freedom and the right of the investigating agency to interrogate the accused as to the material so far collected and to collect more information which may lead to recovery of relevant information. xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx

75. Observing that the arrest is a part of the investigation intended to secure several purposes, in Adri Dharan Das v. State of W.B. [Adri Dharan Das v. State of W.B., (2005) 4 SCC 303 : 2005 SCC (Cri) 933] , it was held as under : (SCC p. 313, para 19)

“19. Ordinarily, arrest is a part of the process of investigation intended to secure several p