CRM-M-25686 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA 205 SUMAN STATE OF HARYANA CORAM:- HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE RUPINDERJIT CHAHAL Present:- Mr. Satnam Singh Gill, 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 Section 42 of the Prison Act, 1894 (Secti Narcotic Drugs & Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, Section 61 of the Excise Act, 1914 and Section 61(2) of the BNS, 2023 added lateron), at Police Station Thanesar City, District Kurukshetra 2. On the BNSS, 2023 is for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner in case FIR No.386, dated 29.12.2025, registered under Section 42 of the Prison Act, 1894 (Sections 20, 22(C), 27 the N 25686-2026 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM Date of decision: Versus HARYANA HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE RUPINDERJIT CHAHAL Mr. Satnam Singh Gill, Advocate for the petitioner. Ms. Shaveta Sanghi, DAG, Haryana ***** RUPINDERJIT CHAHAL, J. (ORAL) 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.386, dated 29.12.2025, registered under Section 42 of the Prison Act, 1894 (Sections 20, 22(C), 27 Narcotic Drugs & Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, Section 61 of the Excise Act, 1914 and Section 61(2) of the BNS, 2023 added lateron), at Police Station Thanesar City, District Kurukshetra On 21.05.2026, the following order “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.386, dated 29.12.2025, registered under Section 42 of the Prison Act, 1894 (Sections 20, 22(C), 27 the Narcotic Drugs & Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-25686-2026 Date of decision: 29.05.2026 ….Petitioner ....Respondent HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE RUPINDERJIT CHAHAL Advocate Ms. Shaveta Sanghi, DAG, Haryana. Through the instant petition filed under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (For short “BNSS”), the petitioner FIR No.386, dated 29.12.2025, registered under ons 20, 22(C), 27-A and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs & Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, Section 61 of the Excise Act, 1914 and Section 61(2) of the BNS, 2023 added lateron), at Police Station Thanesar City, District Kurukshetra. ing 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.386, dated 29.12.2025, registered under Section 42 of the Prison Act, 1894 (Sections 20, 22(C), 27-A and 29 of arcotic Drugs & Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, ….Petitioner ....Respondent Through the instant petition filed under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (For short “BNSS”), the petitioner FIR No.386, dated 29.12.2025, registered under A and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs & Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, Section 61 of the Excise Act, 1914 and Section 61(2) of the BNS, 2023 added lateron), at 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.386, dated 29.12.2025, registered under Section A and 29 of arcotic Drugs & Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, GURPREET 2026.05.29 17:19 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document. CRM-M-25686 Section 61 of the Excise Act, 1914 and Section 61(2) of the BNS, 2023 added lateron), at Police Station Thanesar City, District Kurukshetra. petitioner present case. He further contends that the allegations levelled against the petitioner are false and she has no concern with the said offence. Learned counsel contends that neither the petitioner was prese been contended that the petitioner has been nominated as an accused only on the basis of disclosure statement made by co accused Shishpal @ Shashi. Apart from the disclosure statement, there is no other offence in question and it is a trite law that disclosure statement of co admissible. No recovery is to be effected from the petitioner. Learned counsel has furth ready and willing to join the upon to do so by the investigating agency. to the status report, which has already been filed, has opposed the prayer for grant of bail by submitting that the allegations levelled against the petitioner are serious in nature. 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, she shall be admitted to interim bail on furnishing of bail/surety bonds satisfaction of Arresting/Investigating Officer. The petitioner shall also abide by the conditions as envisaged under Section 482(2) of BNSS, 2023. 25686-2026 2 Section 61 of the Excise Act, 1914 and Section 61(2) of the BNS, 2023 added lateron), at Police Station Thanesar City, District Kurukshetra. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. He further contends that the allegations levelled against the petitioner are false and she has no concern with the said offence. Learned counsel contends that neither the petitioner was present at the spot nor was named in the FIR. It has also been contended that the petitioner has been nominated as an accused only on the basis of disclosure statement made by co accused Shishpal @ Shashi. 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 co-accused during his custodial interrogation is not admissible. No recovery is to be effected from the petitioner. 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. Therefore, it is urged that the present petition be allowed. On the other hand, learned State counsel, while refer to the status report, which has already been filed, has opposed the prayer for grant of bail by submitting that the allegations levelled against the petitioner are serious in nature. Adjourned to 29.05.2026. In the meantime, the petitioner is directed 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, she shall be admitted to interim bail on furnishing of bail/surety bonds satisfaction of Arresting/Investigating Officer. The petitioner shall also abide by the conditions as envisaged under Section 482(2) of BNSS, 2023.” Section 61 of the Excise Act, 1914 and Section 61(2) of the BNS, 2023 added lateron), at Police Station Thanesar City, District Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. He further contends that the allegations levelled against the petitioner are false and she has no concern with the said offence. Learned counsel contends that neither the petitioner nt at the spot nor was named in the FIR. It has also been contended that the petitioner has been nominated as an accused only on the basis of disclosure statement made by co- accused Shishpal @ Shashi. Apart from the disclosure statement, evidence to connect the petitioner with the offence in question and it is a trite law that disclosure statement accused during his custodial interrogation is not admissible. No recovery is to be effected from the petitioner. er submitted that the petitioner is investigation as and when called upon to do so by the investigating agency. Therefore, it is urged that the present petition be allowed. On the other hand, learned State counsel, while referring to the status report, which has already been filed, has opposed the prayer for grant of bail by submitting that the allegations levelled against the petitioner are serious in nature. 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, she 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 Section 61 of the Excise Act, 1914 and Section 61(2) of the BNS, 2023 added lateron), at Police Station Thanesar City, District Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. He further contends that the allegations levelled against the petitioner are false and she has no concern with the said offence. Learned counsel contends that neither the petitioner nt at the spot nor was named in the FIR. It has also been contended that the petitioner has been nominated as an - accused Shishpal @ Shashi. Apart from the disclosure statement, evidence to connect the petitioner with the offence in question and it is a trite law that disclosure statement accused during his custodial interrogation is not admissible. No recovery is to be effected from the petitioner. er submitted that the petitioner is investigation as and when called ring to the status report, which has already been filed, has opposed the prayer for grant of bail by submitting that the allegations 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, she shall be to the satisfaction of Arresting/Investigating Officer. The petitioner shall also abide by the conditions as envisaged under Section GURPREET 2026.05.29 17:19 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document. CRM-M-25686 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in compliance with the order dated the investigation. the petitioner and implicated only on the basis of 4. Learned counsel for the State, submitted that the petitioner has joined the investigation order/protection earlier afforded to the petitioner further custodial interrogation 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 as to whether, apart from the disclosure statement, any material has been found during investigation to connect the petitioner with the recovered contraband, to which learned State counsel submitted that no materi than disclosure statement has been found to connect the petitioner with either the offence or the recovered contraband. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the rival parties and perused the available record. 7. Further, grant of anticipatory bail in a case under NDPS Act, 1985; in a judgment titled as ‘Vijay Singh vs. The State of Haryana, bearing Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No.(s)1266/2023 decided on 17.05.2023’ 25686-2026 3 Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in compliance the order dated 21.05.2026 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 implicated only on the basis of the disclosure statement Learned counsel for the State, on instructions of submitted that the petitioner has joined the investigation order/protection earlier afforded to the petitioner custodial interrogation. She has however in question is under the NDPS Act of 1985, the petitioner ought not to be extended the concession of anticipatory bail. On a specific query put by this Court to the learned State counsel as to whether, apart from the disclosure statement, any material has been found during investigation to connect the petitioner with the recovered contraband, to which learned State counsel submitted that no materi than disclosure statement has been found to connect the petitioner with either the offence or the recovered contraband. I have heard learned counsel for the rival parties and perused the available record. Further, the Hon'ble Supreme Cou grant of anticipatory bail in a case under NDPS Act, 1985; in a judgment ‘Vijay Singh vs. The State of Haryana, bearing Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No.(s)1266/2023 decided on 17.05.2023’ Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in compliance assed by this Court, the petitioner has joined e has further argued that there is no connection between that the petitioner is sought to be disclosure statement of the co-accused. on instructions of SI Naresh, 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 however submitted that since the FIR in question is under the NDPS Act of 1985, the petitioner ought not to be by this Court to the learned State counsel as to whether, apart from the disclosure statement, any material has been found during investigation to connect the petitioner with the recovered contraband, to which learned State counsel submitted that no material other than disclosure statement has been found to connect the petitioner with either I have heard learned counsel for the rival parties and perused the he Hon'ble Supreme Court while dealing with a plea for grant of anticipatory bail in a case under NDPS Act, 1985; in a judgment ‘Vijay Singh vs. The State of Haryana, bearing Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No.(s)1266/2023 decided on 17.05.2023’ has held as under: Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in compliance assed by this Court, the petitioner has joined e has further argued that there is no connection between the petitioner is sought to be has in terms of interim and is no longer required for submitted that since the FIR in question is under the NDPS Act of 1985, the petitioner ought not to be by this Court to the learned State counsel as to whether, apart from the disclosure statement, any material has been found during investigation to connect the petitioner with the recovered al other than disclosure statement has been found to connect the petitioner with either I have heard learned counsel for the rival parties and perused the rt while dealing with a plea for grant of anticipatory bail in a case under NDPS Act, 1985; in a judgment ‘Vijay Singh vs. The State of Haryana, bearing Special Leave to GURPREET 2026.05.29 17:19 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document. CRM-M-25686 "The petitioner is alleged to have committed offences under Sections 15 and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter called the NDPS Act". His application for anticipatory bail was rejected by the High Court. The allegati Post) was recovered from the co concededly was not present at the spot but was named by the co accused. That apart there is no other material to implicate the petitioner. The prose allegations of commission of offence under the NDPS Act are pending against the petitioner. It is not denied that in those proceedings he was granted bail. Having regard to these circumstances, the petitioner is directed anticipatory bail, subject to such terms and conditions as the trial Court may impose. The petition is allowed. All pending applications are disposed of." 8. In the present case also, t solely on the basis of say there is no other material available to connect the petitioner with the recovered contraband. The veracity of the disclosure statement made by the co-accused will be subject to comprehe trial and the same cannot anticipatory bail to the petitioner investigation in terms of interim 9. In view of the above, order dated 21.05.2026 shall continue to join investigation as and when 25686-2026 4 "The petitioner is alleged to have committed offences under Sections 15 and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter called the NDPS Act". His application for anticipatory bail was rejected by the High Court. The allegations in the FIR are that 1.7 Kg of Poppy Straw (Doda Post) was recovered from the co concededly was not present at the spot but was named by the co accused. That apart there is no other material to implicate the petitioner. The prosecution urges that another case with allegations of commission of offence under the NDPS Act are pending against the petitioner. It is not denied that in those proceedings he was granted bail. Having regard to these circumstances, the petitioner is directed anticipatory bail, subject to such terms and conditions as the trial Court may impose. The petition is allowed. All pending applications are disposed of." In the present case also, the petitioner is sought to be arrayed he basis of the disclosure statement of the co say there is no other material available to connect the petitioner with the recovered contraband. The veracity of the disclosure statement made by the accused will be subject to comprehensive scrutiny during the course of the same cannot by itself be a ground to decline the concession of anticipatory bail to the petitioner, especially when investigation in terms of interim order/protection granted by this In view of the above, the petition is allowed and 21.05.2026 passed by this Court is made absolute. The petitioner shall continue to join investigation as and when "The petitioner is alleged to have committed offences under Sections 15 and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter called the NDPS Act". His application for anticipatory bail was rejected by the High Court. ons in the FIR are that 1.7 Kg of Poppy Straw (Doda Post) was recovered from the co-accused. The petitioner concededly was not present at the spot but was named by the co- accused. That apart there is no other material to implicate the cution urges that another case with allegations of commission of offence under the NDPS Act are pending against the petitioner. It is not denied that in those proceedings he was granted bail. Having regard to these circumstances, the petitioner is directed to the enlarged on anticipatory bail, subject to such terms and conditions as the trial Court may impose. The petition is allowed. All pending he petitioner is sought to be arrayed disclosure statement of the co-accused. Suffice to say there is no other material available to connect the petitioner with the recovered contraband. The veracity of the disclosure statement made by the nsive scrutiny during the course of the be a ground to decline the concession of especially when she has joined the protection granted by this Court. the petition is allowed and the interim is made absolute. The petitioner shall continue to join investigation as and when required by the Investigating "The petitioner is alleged to have committed offences under Sections 15 and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter called the NDPS Act". His application for anticipatory bail was rejected by the High Court. ons in the FIR are that 1.7 Kg of Poppy Straw (Doda accused. The petitioner - accused. That apart there is no other material to implicate the cution urges that another case with allegations of commission of offence under the NDPS Act are pending against the petitioner. It is not denied that in those proceedings he was granted bail. Having regard to these to the enlarged on anticipatory bail, subject to such terms and conditions as the trial Court may impose. The petition is allowed. All pending he petitioner is sought to be arrayed accused. Suffice to say there is no other material available to connect the petitioner with the recovered contraband. The veracity of the disclosure statement made by the nsive scrutiny during the course of the be a ground to decline the concession of he has joined the the interim is made absolute. The petitioner by the Investigating GURPREET 2026.05.29 17:19 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document. CRM-M-25686 Officer and shall also ab 482(2) of the BNSS. 10. Needless to say anything observed herein above shall not be construed to be an opinion on the merits of the case. 29.05.2026 Gurpreet 25686-2026 5 Officer and shall also abide by the conditions as provided under Section 482(2) of the BNSS. Needless to say anything observed herein above shall not be construed to be an opinion on the merits of the case. i) Whether speaking/reasoned? Yes/No ii) Whether reportable? Yes/No ide by the conditions as provided under Section Needless to say anything observed herein above shall not be construed to be an opinion on the merits of the case. (RUPINDERJIT CHAHAL) JUDGE speaking/reasoned? Yes/No ide by the conditions as provided under Section Needless to say anything observed herein above shall not be (RUPINDERJIT CHAHAL) GURPREET 2026.05.29 17:19 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document.