IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of decision : 12.02.2026 SURAJ SINGH @ SURIYA ... Petitioner Versus STATE OF PUNJAB ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANISHA BATRA Present: Mr. B.S. Bhalla, Advocate for the petitioner Ms. Ruchika Sabherwal, Sr. DAG, Punjab **** (cid:1)

MANISHA BATRA, J. (ORAL)

1. The instant petition has been filed by the petitioner under Section 482 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short “BNSS”) for grant of anticipatory bail in case arising out of FIR No.182 dated 15.07.2025 registered under Section 21 of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act (for short “NDPS”) (Section 29 of NDPS Act added later on) at Police Station City South, District Moga.

2. As per the allegations, on 15.07.2025, on receipt of a secret information, the accused Jaswinder Singh was apprehended and recovery of 12 grams of heroin was effected from his conscious possession which was taken into possession. The above named accused was formally arrested. On interrogation, he suffered disclosure statement on the basis of which, the present petitioner was nominated as accused. Apprehending his arrest, he moved an application for anticipatory bail which was dismissed by the Court of Ld. Judge, Special Court, Moga vide order dated 28.01.2026.

3. It is argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that he has been falsely implicated in this case on the basis of disclosure statement of the co- accused which cannot be considered to be admissible in evidence. He is ready to join investigation. His custodial interrogation is not required. It is, therefore, argued that the petition deserves to be allowed.

4. Notice of motion.

5. Learned State counsel has advance notice of the petition and is ready to argue the matter. It is submitted by her that there are serious allegations against the petitioner. He is a habitual offender being involved in 08 other cases of similar nature. There are chances of his misusing the concession of bail by committing similar offences, if extended benefit of bail. For conducting thorough investigation into the matter and to elicit information about the source of the contraband, his custodial interrogation is must. It is, therefore, argued that the petition does not deserve to be allowed.

6. This Court has heard the rival submissions made by learned counsel for both the parties.

7. The petitioner is alleged to have supplied non-commercial quantity of contraband to the co-accused. He is involved in 08 other cases under the provisions of the NDPS Act and has criminal antecedents. It is well settled proposition of law that powers for grant of pre-arrest bail should be exercised by the Court in exceptional or extra-ordinary circumstances and not in a routine manner. The case is at its nascent stage. For conducting effective investigation so as to avoid any loopholes in the same, the custodial interrogation of the petitioner is must. Even otherwise, an accused cannot claim benefit of anticipatory bail as a matter of right, even if his custodial interrogation is not required. No exceptional or extra-ordinary circumstance for grant of bail is made out in favour of the petitioner. Taking into consideration the above discussed facts but without meaning to make any comment on the merit of the case, this Court is of the considered opinion that the petition does deserve to be allowed. Accordingly the same is dismissed.

8. It is, however, clarified that the observations made hereinabove shall not be construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case and shall not influence the outcome of the trial.

9. Since the main petition has been dismissed, pending application, if any, is rendered infructuous.

(MANISHA BATRA)

12.02.2026 Whether speaking/reasoned:- Yes/No Amit Sharma (cid:2)(cid:3)(cid:4)(cid:5)(cid:3)(cid:4)(cid:6)(cid:1)(cid:6)(cid:4)(cid:7)(cid:8)(cid:6)(cid:5)(cid:9)(cid:10)(cid:11)(cid:4)(cid:12)(cid:13)(cid:1)(cid:14)(cid:4)(cid:15)(cid:16)(cid:17)(cid:8)(cid:1)