IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of decision: 30.03.2026 Date of uploading: 30.03.2026 Anup Kumar Yadav ....Petitioner V/s State of Haryana ....Respondent CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL Present: Mr. Rahul Kadian, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Gurmeet Singh, AAG, Haryana.

*****

SUMEET GOEL, J. (Oral)

1. Present petition has been filed on behalf of the petitioner seeking grant of anticipatory/pre-arrest bail under Section 482 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (hereinafter to be referred as ‘BNSS’) in FIR No.83 dated 07.03.2025 registered for offences punishable under Section 18-B of the NDPS Act at Police Station Sadar Jind, District Jind.

2. The gravamen of the FIR in question is that the petitioner is an accused of being involved in FIR pertaining to NDPS Act involving recovery of 16 kg 306 grams of opium, which was allegedly recovered from the co-accused of the petitioner namely Pappu Choudhary, Ranjit Yadav and Simranjit Singh. The petitioner’s name has come in the disclosure statement of the said co-

accused.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has iterated that the petitioner has been falsely implicated into the FIR. Learned counsel has further iterated that no recovery whatsoever has been effected from the conscious possession of the petitioner and that he was not present at the spot at the time of the alleged recovery. The petitioner has been nominated in the disclosure statement of the co-accused. Learned counsel has emphasized that there are material contradictions and improvements in the prosecution version & nothing is to be recovered from the petitioner. Learned counsel has further submitted that the petitioner is ready and willing to join the investigation and shall fully cooperate with the investigating agency in case enlarged on pre- arrest bail. On the strength of these submissions, the grant of anticipatory bail is prayed for.

4. Per contra, learned State counsel has vehemently opposed the grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner by submitting that the allegations against the petitioner are grave and serious in nature. Learned State counsel has emphasized that the custodial interrogation of the petitioner is indispensable to unearth the larger nexus and further links of the syndicate indulged in the illegal trade of narcotics. Having regard to the gravity of the offence, the larger public interest in eradicating the menace of drug trafficking and the potential risk to the fair investigation and trial, it is respectfully submitted that the petitioner does not deserve the concession of anticipatory bail. Accordingly, it is prayed that the present petition be dismissed in the interest of justice.

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

6. As per the case put forth in the FIR in question, serious allegations have undeniably been levelled in relation to the commission of offences under the NDPS Act. As per the case set up by the prosecution, strong evidence exists against the petitioner, including disclosure statements of the co-accused. In view of the seriousness of allegations, the nature of evidence indicating his active complicity, and the requirement of thorough investigation, this Court does not find it to be a fit case for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner. At this stage, no material has been placed on record to demonstrate that the petitioner is completely unconnected with the offence and the possibility of recovery of further contraband or discovery of incriminating material cannot be ruled out.

7. The investigation conducted thus far indicates the involvement of the petitioner in a well-organized network engaged in the illegal trade and distribution of psychotropic substances. The nature and gravity of the offence, coupled with the material collected on record, justify the necessity of custodial interrogation to unravel the larger conspiracy and to identify other potential co-con