IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH DATE OF DECISION: 13.02.2026 Bobby ........Petitioner VERSUS State of Punjab .........Respondent CORAM HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUBHAS MEHLA Present Mr.Kartik Gandhi, Advocate, (through VC)

for the petitioner.

Mr.Anup Singh, AAG, Punjab.

***

SUBHAS MEHLA, J (ORAL)

1. The present petition has been filed under Section 482 read with Section 528 of BNSS, 2023 seeking anticipatory bail to the petitioner in a case bearing FIR No.0097 dated 09.08.2025, under Section 21,25,29,61,85 of NDPS Act, registered at Police Station Sadar Raikot, District Ludhiana, Punjab (Annexure P-1).

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioner has been involved in this case only on the basis of disclosure statement made by co-accused, namely, Vishal Kalyan @ Locha and Jaswant Singh; except the disclosure statement, no material is available with the prosecution to prove the commission of offence; disclosure statement is inadmissible in the evidence; contraband recovered from the co-accused falls under intermediate quantity and requested for grant of anticipatory bail as the petitioner is ready to join the investigation.

3. In pursuance of advance notice, Mr.Anup Singh, AAG, Punjab, appeared and, on instructions from SI Harpreet Singh, submitted that three co-accused arrested and from their possession 152 gms Heroin was recovered; they nominated the present petitioner; petitioner is having criminal antecedents and also involved in a similar case of NDPS Act bearing FIR No. 27 dated 07.02.2022 and prayed for dismissal of the present petition.

4. Heard.

5. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case and the allegation that the petitioner is a supplier of the contraband which is recovered i.e 152 gms of Heroine, which has been recovered from the co- accused; he is required for custodial interrogation to know about the source of the drug and drug money and to recover the same; he is also involved in similar activities as contended by learned State counsel, anticipatory bail cannot be granted to the petitioner in view of law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case titled as ‘CBI Vs. Anil Sharma, 1997 AIR Supreme Court 3806’ decided on 03.08.1997, wherein it has been held as under:-

“....custodial interrogation is qualitatively more elicitation oriented than questioning a suspect who is well ensconced with a favorable order under Section 438 of the code. In a case like this effective interrogation of suspected person is of tremendous advantage in disinterring many useful informations and also materials which would have been concealed. Success in such interrogation would elude if the suspected person knows that he is well protected and insulated by a pre-arrest bail order during the time he is interrogated. Very often interrogation in such a condition would reduce to a mere ritual. The argument that the custodial interrogation is fraught with the danger of the person being subjected to third degree methods need not be countenanced, for, such an argument can be advanced by all accused in all criminal cases.

The court has to presume that responsible Police Officers would conduct themselves in a responsible manner and that those entrusted with the task of disinterring would not conduct themselves as offenders.”

6. Honble Apex Court in Anarul S.K. Vs. The State of West Bengal (SLP (Crl.) No.12621-2024 has observed that the grant of anticipatory bail in cases involving Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) is a very serious issue.

7. In view of the above, this Court finds no ground to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner and the present petition stands dismissed.

8. Nothing observed hereinabove shall be construed to be an expression of opinion by this Court lest it may prejudice the trial. The learned trial Court is directed to proceed with the trial on its own merits, strictly in accordance with law.

13.02.2026 (SUBHAS MEHLA)

mamta JUDGE