##PAGE1##

CRM-M-16611-2026 1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

237

CRM-M-16611-2026 Date of decision: 07.04.2026

CHHINDER SINGH ….Petitioner

Versus

STATE OF HARYANA ....Respondent

CORAM:- HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE RUPINDERJIT CHAHAL

Present:- Mr. Arvinder Singh Khosa, Advocate for the petitioner.

Ms. Shaveta Sanghi, DAG, Haryana.

*****

RUPINDERJIT CHAHAL, J. (ORAL)

1. Through the instant petition filed under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (For short “BNSS”), the petitioner seeks anticipatory bail in case FIR No.345 dated 15.09.2025 registered under Section 21(B) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (Section 27A of the NDPS Act added later on) at Police Station Sadar

Fatehabad, District Fatehabad (Annexure P-1).

2. On 25.03.2026, the following order was passed by this Court: -

“Prayer in the present petition filed under Section

482 of the BNSS, 2023 is for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner in case FIR No.345 dated 15.09.2025 registered under Section 21(B) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (Section 27A of the NDPS Act added later

GURPREET

2026.04.09 10:22 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document.

CRM-M-16611-2026 2

on) at Police Station Sadar Fatehabad, District Fatehabad (Annexure P-1).

Brief facts as per the prosecution case are that on

15.09.2025, S.I. Banwali Lal along with fellow police officials acting upon a secret information, apprehended Gurpreet Singh and Pinki who were found in conscious possession of 14 grams 45 mg of Heroin. Initially, the FIR in question was registered

against the said co-accused persons.

Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case. He further contends that the petitioner was neither present at the spot, nor was named in the FIR and he has no concern with the said incident. He further contends that the petitioner has been nominated as an accused only on the basis of the disclosure statement made by co-accused persons. Apart from the disclosure statement, there is no other evidence to connect the petitioner with the offence in question and it is a trite law that disclosure statement of the co-accused during his/her custodial interrogation is not admissible in evidence. No recovery is to be effected from the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the petitioner is ready and willing to join the investigation as and when called upon to do so by the

investigating agency.

Notice of motion.

On asking of the Court, Mr. Gagandeep Singh Chhina, Sr.

DAG Haryana, accepts notice on behalf of respondent-State and seeks time to file status report in the matter.

Adjourned to 07.04.2026.

In the meantime, the petitioner is directed to join investigation within a week from today and would appear as and when required by the Investigating Officer and cooperate with the Investigating Agency. In the event of arrest, he shall be admitted to interim bail on furnishing of bail/surety bonds to the satisfaction of Arresting/Investigating Officer. The petitioner

GURPREET

2026.04.09 10:22 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document.

CRM-M-16611-2026 3

shall also abide by the conditions as envisaged under Section

482(2) of BNSS, 2023.”

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in compliance with the order dated 25.03.2026 passed by this Court, the petitioner has joined the investigation. He has further argued that there is no connection between the petitioner and the co-accused and that the petitioner is sought to be

implicated only on the basis of the disclosure statement of the co-accused.

4. Learned counsel for the State, on instructions from SI Hans Raj, has submitted that the petitioner has joined the investigation in terms of interim order/protection earlier afforded to the petitioner and is no longer required for further custodial interrogation. He has however submitted that since the FIR in question i