IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-15177-2026 Date of decision: 16.04.2026 NARINDERPAL SINGH ….Petitioner Versus INTELLIGENCE OFFICER, DIRECTORATE OF REVENUE INTELLIGENCE LUDHIANA ....Respondent CORAM:- HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE RUPINDERJIT CHAHAL Present:- Mr. SPS Sidhu, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Ankit Bhinder, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Sourabh Goel, Special Public Prosecutor for the respondent.

..…

RUPINDERJIT CHAHAL, J. (ORAL)

1. Prayer in the present petition filed under Section 482 of the BNSS, 2023 is for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner in case vide File No.DRI/Ldh/855/INT-05/2025 dated 16.11.2025 registered under Sections 17, 18, 19 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, at Police Station DRI Ludhiana, District Ludhiana.

2. Brief facts of the present case as per the prosecution are that acting upon a secret information, the officers of DRI, Ludhiana on 15.11.2025 seized 735 grams of opium contained in 04 parcels in DHL Office, Dhandhari Kalan, Ludhiana which was destined through courier from India to USA.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case. He further contends that neither the petitioner was named in the FIR nor has any concern with the said offence. He further contends that the courier containing opium recovered by DRI was booked by one Mehar Singh. He further submits that the vehicle in question as is seen in the CCTV footage is not registered in the name of the petitioner. No recovery is to be effected from the petitioner. He further submits that the recovered contraband is non- commercial in nature. Learned counsel has further submitted that the petitioner is ready and willing to join the investigation as and when called upon to do so by the investigating agency.

4. After registration of the FIR, investigation has been initiated and is under way. Apprehending his arrest, the petitioner had moved an application for grant of anticipatory bail which has been dismissed by learned Judge, Special Court, Ludhiana, vide order dated 05.03.2026.

5. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Directorate of Revenue Intelligence has already filed the status report and while relying upon the same, has opposed the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail, by submitting that the allegations levelled against the petitioner are serious in nature. He argued that during investigation in the present case it was found that the vehicle used for booking the courier was used by the present petitioner. He further submitted that the wife of the petitioner had identified him in the CCTV footage when he had gone to book the courier containing opium. He further submits that the learned Trial Court has already issued warrants of arrest against the petitioner vide orders dated 22.01.2026 and since then he has been evading his arrest. He further argued that custodial interrogation of the petitioner is required to enquire about his role in the drug nexus. Hence, he prays for dismissal of the petition.

6. Heard.

7. In the present case, the allegations levelled against the petitioner are serious in nature. As per the prosecution, the vehicle used for booking the courier parcel containing opium was being used by the present petitioner. Furthermore, the petitioner has been identified in the said CCTV footage by his wife, which lends prima facie credence to the prosecution case. Considering the gravity of the allegations, the custodial interrogation of the petitioner is required for fair and effective investigation in the matter.

8. It is befitting to mention here that while considering a plea for grant of anticipatory bail, the Court has to equilibrate between safeguarding individual rights and protecting societal interest(s). The Court ought to reckon with the magnitude and nature of the offence; the role attributed to the accused; the need for fair and free investigation as also the deeper and wide impact of such al