##PAGE1##

CRM-M-11770-2026 1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

215

CRM-M-11770-2026 Date of decision: 27.03.2026

BEERU KUMAR ….Petitioner

Versus

STATE OF HARYANA ....Respondent

CORAM:- HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE RUPINDERJIT CHAHAL

Present:- Mr. Vikas Kumar Dhariwal, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Mohit Chaudhary, AAG, 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.0015 dated 17.01.2026 registered under Sections 20(b)(ii)(B) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act,

1985 at Police Station Sector 14, Gurugram.

2. On 05.03.2026, 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.0015 dated 17.01.2026 registered under Sections 20(b)(ii)(B) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 at Police Station Sector 14,

Gurugram.

GURPREET

2026.04.01 18:39 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document.

CRM-M-11770-2026 2

Brief facts as per the prosecution case are that on

17.01.2026, ASI Sombir along with fellow police officials was on a patrolling duty and on a secret information, apprehended one Prakash who was found in conscious possession of 206 grams of Charas. Initially, the FIR in question was registered against the

said co-accused.

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 contends that the petitioner has been nominated as an accused only on the basis of the disclosure statement made by co-accused Prakash. 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 23.03.2026.

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 shall also abide by the conditions as envisaged under Section

482(2) of BNSS, 2023.”

GURPREET

2026.04.01 18:39 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document.

CRM-M-11770-2026 3

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in compliance with the order dated 05.03.2026 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, 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 is under the NDPS Act of 1985, the petitioner ought not to be extended the

concession of anticipatory bail.

5. On a specific query put by this Court to the learned State counsel