119 (2 cases)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

1. CRM-M-27646-2025 Navjot Singh ….Petitioner versus Union of India though Sub Inspector, Narcotics Control Bureau, Amritsar Zonal Unit, Amritsar ….Respondent

2. CRM-M-30059-2025 Manish Kumar ….Petitioner versus Union of India through Sub Inspector, Narcotics Control Bureau, Amritsar Zonal Unit, Punjab ….Respondent Date of Decision: February 11, 2026 Date of Uploading: February 12, 2026 CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL Present:- Mr. Ruhani Chadha, Advocate for the petitioner (in CRM-27646-2025).

Ms. Navjot Kaur, Advocate for the petitioner (in CRM-M-30059-2025).

Mr. Rajiv Sharma, Special Public Prosecutor with Ms. Indu Bala Sharma, Advocate, Mr. Vinayak Atri, Advocate and Ms. Amrit Kashyap, Advocate for the respondent – NCB.

*****

SUMEET GOEL, J. (ORAL)

By way of the present common judgment, this Court proceeds to adjudicate the aforesaid two petitions together in view of the admitted commonality of factual matrix and congruity of legal issues involved therein, as fairly conceded by the learned counsel appearing for the respective parties.

For the sake of convenience & brevity, the facts are extracted from CRM-M-27646-2025 titled as Navjot Singh versus Union of India, through Sub Inspector, Narcotics Control Bureau, Amritsar Zonal Unit, Amritsar.

2. Present petitions have been filed under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short ‘BNSS’) for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner(s), in NCB Crime Case No.51 dated 08.12.2024, registered under Sections 8, 22 and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short ‘NDPS Act’), at Police Station Narcotic Control Bureau, Amritsar Zone, Punjab.

3. As per case setup by the Narcotics Control Bureau, the complaint in question involves recovery of commercial quantity of contraband, i.e. 1,37,11,610 tablets (total weighing 5772.584 Kg. albeit with strips)

containing Alprazolam, Tramadol and Zolpidem Tartrate.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner(s) have has iterated that a bare perusal of the FIR itself shows that allegations leveled against the petitioner(s) are concocted, improbable and devoid of any merit. Learned counsel have further iterated that the petitioner(s) have been nominated, in the present case, solely on the basis of disclosure statement made by the co- accused, namely, Manpreet Singh. It is also submitted that the petitioner(s) have no nexus with the main accused, namely, Sukhpal Singh and Harwinder Singh. Learned counsel has further argued that in terms of the interim order dated 20.05.2025 (in the case of Navjot Singh) and order dated 28.05.2025 (in the case of Manish Kumar), they have joined investigation and cooperated therein.

4.1. Learned counsel has further submitted that custodial interrogation of the petitioner(s) is no longer warranted as nothing incriminating remains to be recovered from them. Moreover, there is no likelihood of the petitioner(s) absconding from the process of justice or tampering with the prosecution evidence, in case, they are enlarged on pre- arrest bail. On strength of these submissions, the grant of anticipatory bail is entreated for.

5. Per contra, learned State counsel has filed reply dated 10.08.2025 (petitioner-Navjot Singh) on behalf of the respondent, which is already on record. Raising submissions in tandem with the said reply, learned State counsel has opposed the grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner by arguing that the offence committed by the petitioner is serious in nature as pertaining to involvement of commercial quantity under NDPS Act. Though, the petitioner has joined investigation, but his cooperation has not been satisfactory.

5.1. Raising submissions in tandem with the reply dated 11.11.2025 (petitioner-Manish Kumar), learned State counsel has opposed the grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner by arguing that the offence committed by the petitioner is serious in nature as pertaining to invo