CRM-M- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT 117 Navjot Kaur @ Na State of Punjab Date of decision: Date of Uploading : 1 CORAM: Present: SUMEET GOEL 1. Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (hereinafter to be referred as ‘the BNSS’) for grant of bearing FIR No. punishable under Sections and 27 of the Arms Act at arrest/anticipatory bail before this Court which was dismissed on 01.04.20 of anticipatory/pre 27.05.2026 2. secret information, -32050-2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Navjot Kaur @ Nav V/s State of Punjab Date of decision: 14.07.2026 Date of Uploading : 15.07.2026 CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL Mr. Yajur Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Adhiraj Singh Thind, AAG Punjab ***** SUMEET GOEL, J. (Oral) The present petition is the second attempt under Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (hereinafter to be referred as ‘the for grant of pre-arrest/anticipatory bearing FIR No.113 dated 24.09.2025 punishable under Sections 21(c) and 29 of the and 27 of the Arms Act at Police Station Mehta, District Amritsar (Rural) The petitioner had earlier applied for grant of pre arrest/anticipatory bail before this Court which was dismissed 01.04.2026. The relevant part of said order “2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, after arguing for sometime, seeks to withdraw the petition in hand. 3. Ordered accordingly.” Thereafter, the present petition i.e. the second petition for grant of anticipatory/pre-arrest bail has been preferred by the petitioner on 27.05.2026. The gravamen of the FIR in question reflects that on secret information, the police apprehended accused Jeevandeep Kaur, wife 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-32050-2026 ....Petitioner ....Respondent HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL Mr. Yajur Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Adhiraj Singh Thind, AAG Punjab. The present petition is the second attempt under Section 482 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (hereinafter to be referred as ‘the arrest/anticipatory bail to the petitioner in case 24.09.2025, registered for the offences and 29 of the NDPS Act and Sections 25 Mehta, District Amritsar (Rural). The petitioner had earlier applied for grant of pre arrest/anticipatory bail before this Court which was dismissed as withdrawn The relevant part of said order reads as under:- Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, after arguing for sometime, seeks to withdraw the petition in hand. Thereafter, the present petition i.e. the second petition for grant arrest bail has been preferred by the petitioner on The gravamen of the FIR in question reflects that on receipt of ehended accused Jeevandeep Kaur, wife 482 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (hereinafter to be referred as ‘the bail to the petitioner in case , registered for the offences and Sections 25 . The petitioner had earlier applied for grant of pre- as withdrawn Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, after arguing for Thereafter, the present petition i.e. the second petition for grant arrest bail has been preferred by the petitioner on receipt of ehended accused Jeevandeep Kaur, wife AJAY KUMAR 2026.07.15 10:02 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M- of co-accused Baljinder Singh, who was found in possession of 3 kg grams of heroin, which is a commercial quantity, along with one .30 bore pistol, a magazine and three live cartridges. Accordingly, the present FIR was registered. arrested after about two months and sum of Rs. from his possession. made a disclosure statement stating that he had received arms from disclosure statement, the petitioner was nominated present FIR. 3. petitioner was not named in the FIR and her implication was solely on the basis of the disclosure statement of a co evidence. Learned counsel has further ite or any other incriminating article has been recovered from her possession and the entire prosecution case against the petitioner is unsupported by any independent evidence. It has been further contended that the petitioner never been associated with the proceedings leading to the registration of the FIR. Furthermore, whereinafter drug money of the petitioner is not warranted in the factual Learned counsel has emphasized that the years; has deep roots in society and there is no likeliho -32050-2026 accused Baljinder Singh, who was found in possession of 3 kg grams of heroin, which is a commercial quantity, along with one .30 bore pistol, a magazine and three live cartridges. Accordingly, the present FIR was registered. Subsequently, accused Baljinder Singh arrested after about two months and during the course of interrogation, a sum of Rs.24,00,000/- being proceeds of drug trafficking was recovered from his possession. During investigation, made a disclosure statement stating that he had received arms from the present petitioner Navjot Kaur disclosure statement, the petitioner was nominated IR. Learned counsel for the petitioner has iterated that the petitioner was not named in the FIR and her implication was solely on the basis of the disclosure statement of a co evidence. Learned counsel has further ite or any other incriminating article has been recovered from her possession and the entire prosecution case against the petitioner is unsupported by any independent evidence. It has been further contended that the petitioner never been associated with the proceedings leading to the registration of the FIR. Furthermore, the main/principal accused whereinafter the recovery of the alleged contraband, weapon drug money has already been effected and, of the petitioner is not warranted in the factual Learned counsel has emphasized that the years; has deep roots in society and there is no likeliho 2 accused Baljinder Singh, who was found in possession of 3 kgs grams of heroin, which is a commercial quantity, along with one .30 bore pistol, a magazine and three live cartridges. Accordingly, the present FIR Subsequently, accused Baljinder Singh @ Bunti was during the course of interrogation, a being proceeds of drug trafficking was recovered During investigation, the accused Baljinder Singh made a disclosure statement stating that he had received the contraband and Navjot Kaur. On the basis of the said disclosure statement, the petitioner was nominated as an accused in the Learned counsel for the petitioner has iterated that the petitioner was not named in the FIR and her implication was solely on the basis of the disclosure statement of a co-accused which is inadmissible in evidence. Learned counsel has further iterated that no contraband, weapon or any other incriminating article has been recovered from her possession and the entire prosecution case against the petitioner is unsupported by any independent evidence. It has been further contended that the petitioner has never been associated with the proceedings leading to the registration of the main/principal accused has already been arrested recovery of the alleged contraband, weapon as also the and, hence the custodial interrogation of the petitioner is not warranted in the factual milieu of the case in hand. Learned counsel has emphasized that the petitioner is a lady aged about 29 years; has deep roots in society and there is no likelihood of her absconding 44 grams of heroin, which is a commercial quantity, along with one .30 bore pistol, a magazine and three live cartridges. Accordingly, the present FIR was during the course of interrogation, a being proceeds of drug trafficking was recovered accused Baljinder Singh contraband and On the basis of the said in the Learned counsel for the petitioner has iterated that the petitioner was not named in the FIR and her implication was solely on the accused which is inadmissible in rated that no contraband, weapon or any other incriminating article has been recovered from her possession and the entire prosecution case against the petitioner is unsupported by any has never been associated with the proceedings leading to the registration of the been arrested as also the the custodial interrogation of the case in hand. aged about 29 od of her absconding AJAY KUMAR 2026.07.15 10:02 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M- or influencing the investigation. is willing required & the bars. petition is entreated for. 4. anticipatory bail to the petitioner by arguing that the present petition is not maintainable, as it co there being any substantial change in circumstances, thereby failing both on procedural grounds and on merits. the first petition was dismissed as withdrawn Court and neither any prayer was made nor petitioner to file afresh with better particulars. Accordingly, the State counsel has argued that the instant petition deserves dismissal on this score alone. On merits, l arguing that the pertain to an organized network engaged in trafficking of narcotic substances involving commercial quantity o has further iterated that al her involvement accused Baljinder Singh specifically disclosed that the contraband recovered in the present case had been procured from the petitioner. Learned State counsel has emphasized that the active role in the supply chain of narcotic substances and, therefore, her nomination is not mechanical but is the course of -32050-2026 or influencing the investigation. It has been further argued that willing to join the investigation and required & hence no useful purpose would be served by sending the bars. On the strength of these submissions, the grant of the instant petition is entreated for. Per contra, learned State counsel anticipatory bail to the petitioner by arguing that the present petition is not maintainable, as it constitutes a second petition for anticipatory bail, without there being any substantial change in circumstances, thereby failing both on procedural grounds and on merits. Learned State counsel has submitted that the first petition was dismissed as withdrawn Court and neither any prayer was made nor petitioner to file afresh with better particulars. Accordingly, the State counsel has argued that the instant petition deserves dismissal on this score On merits, learned State counsel has opposed the present petition by arguing that the allegations raised against the petitioner are grave and pertain to an organized network engaged in trafficking of narcotic substances involving commercial quantity o has further iterated that although the petitioner was not named in the FIR her involvement has surfaced during the course of investigation when co accused Baljinder Singh specifically disclosed that the contraband recovered in the present case had been procured from the petitioner. Learned State has emphasized that the petitioner has been at active role in the supply chain of narcotic substances and, therefore, her nomination is not mechanical but is based on the the course of investigation. It has been further 3 It has been further argued that the petitioner and cooperate therein as and when no useful purpose would be served by sending her behind submissions, the grant of the instant , learned State counsel has opposed the grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner by arguing that the present petition is not nstitutes a second petition for anticipatory bail, without there being any substantial change in circumstances, thereby failing both on Learned State counsel has submitted that the first petition was dismissed as withdrawn on 01.04.2026 before this Court and neither any prayer was made nor was any liberty granted to the petitioner to file afresh with better particulars. Accordingly, the State counsel has argued that the instant petition deserves dismissal on this score has opposed the present petition by against the petitioner are grave and pertain to an organized network engaged in trafficking of narcotic substances involving commercial quantity of heroin. Learned State counsel though the petitioner was not named in the FIR but surfaced during the course of investigation when co accused Baljinder Singh specifically disclosed that the contraband recovered in the present case had been procured from the petitioner. Learned State petitioner has been attributed a specific and active role in the supply chain of narcotic substances and, therefore, her based on the material collected during has been further submitted that offences under the petitioner cooperate therein as and when behind submissions, the grant of the instant opposed the grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner by arguing that the present petition is not nstitutes a second petition for anticipatory bail, without there being any substantial change in circumstances, thereby failing both on Learned State counsel has submitted that before this liberty granted to the petitioner to file afresh with better particulars. Accordingly, the State counsel has argued that the instant petition deserves dismissal on this score has opposed the present petition by against the petitioner are grave and pertain to an organized network engaged in trafficking of narcotic Learned State counsel but surfaced during the course of investigation when co- accused Baljinder Singh specifically disclosed that the contraband recovered in the present case had been procured from the petitioner. Learned State tributed a specific and active role in the supply chain of narcotic substances and, therefore, her material collected during submitted that offences under AJAY KUMAR 2026.07.15 10:02 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M- the NDPS Act, particularly those involving commercial quantity, stand on a distinct footing therefore, require a strict approach while considering a prayer for pre bail. Given the gravity of the offe curbing the menace of drug trafficking and the potential threat to the fair conduct of the trial, it is concession of anticipatory bail the dismissal of the petition in hand. 5. gone through the available record of the case. 6. this Court in a title RCR(Criminal) 65 -32050-2026 NDPS Act, particularly those involving commercial quantity, stand on a distinct footing on account of the serious impact therefore, require a strict approach while considering a prayer for pre Given the gravity of the offence, the larger public interest involved in curbing the menace of drug trafficking and the potential threat to the fair conduct of the trial, it is prayed that the petitioner does not deserve the concession of anticipatory bail. Accordingly, a prayer has the dismissal of the petition in hand. I have heard the learned counsel for the gone through the available record of the case. It would be apposite to refer herein to a judgment passed by this Court in a titled as Bhisham Singh vs. State of Haryana, 2024(3) RCR(Criminal) 65, relevant whereof reads as under: “11. As an epilogue to the above rumination, the following principles emerge: I Second/successive anticipatory bail petition(s) filed under Section 438 of Cr.P.C., 1973 is maintainable in law & hence such petition ought not to be rejected solely on the ground of maintainability thereof. II Such second/successive anticipatory bail petition(s) is maintainable whether earlier petition was dismissed as withdrawn/dismissed as not pressed/dismissed for non or earlier petition was dismissed on merits. III For the second/successive anticipatory bail petition(s) to succeed, the petitioner/applicant shall be essentially/pertinently required to show substantial change in circumstances and showing of a mere superficial or ostensible change would not suffice. IV No exhaustive guidelines can possibly be laid down as to what would constitute substantial change in circumstances as every case has its own u this issue is best left to the judicial wisdom and discretion of the 4 NDPS Act, particularly those involving commercial quantity, stand on a serious impact on the Society and, therefore, require a strict approach while considering a prayer for pre-arrest nce, the larger public interest involved in curbing the menace of drug trafficking and the potential threat to the fair that the petitioner does not deserve the . Accordingly, a prayer has been made for I have heard the learned counsel for the rival parties and have gone through the available record of the case. It would be apposite to refer herein to a judgment passed by Bhisham Singh vs. State of Haryana, 2024(3) relevant whereof reads as under:- As an epilogue to the above rumination, the following Second/successive anticipatory bail petition(s) filed under of Cr.P.C., 1973 is maintainable in law & hence such petition ought not to be rejected solely on the ground of Such second/successive anticipatory bail petition(s) is maintainable whether earlier petition was dismissed as drawn/dismissed as not pressed/dismissed for non-prosecution or earlier petition was dismissed on merits. For the second/successive anticipatory bail petition(s) to succeed, the petitioner/applicant shall be essentially/pertinently ubstantial change in circumstances and showing of a mere superficial or ostensible change would not No exhaustive guidelines can possibly be laid down as to what would constitute substantial change in circumstances as every case has its own unique facts/circumstance. Accordingly, this issue is best left to the judicial wisdom and discretion of the NDPS Act, particularly those involving commercial quantity, stand on a ociety and, arrest nce, the larger public interest involved in curbing the menace of drug trafficking and the potential threat to the fair that the petitioner does not deserve the been made for and have It would be apposite to refer herein to a judgment passed by Bhisham Singh vs. State of Haryana, 2024(3) As an epilogue to the above rumination, the following Second/successive anticipatory bail petition(s) filed under of Cr.P.C., 1973 is maintainable in law & hence such petition ought not to be rejected solely on the ground of Such second/successive anticipatory bail petition(s) is maintainable whether earlier petition was dismissed as prosecution For the second/successive anticipatory bail petition(s) to succeed, the petitioner/applicant shall be essentially/pertinently ubstantial change in circumstances and showing of a mere superficial or ostensible change would not No exhaustive guidelines can possibly be laid down as to what would constitute substantial change in circumstances as nique facts/circumstance. Accordingly, this issue is best left to the judicial wisdom and discretion of the AJAY KUMAR 2026.07.15 10:02 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M- 7. anticipatory bail by the petitioner. A second anticipatory bail petition is indeed maintainable under law; however, it requires demonstration of a substantial change in circumstances since the earlier peti proposition of law that such change must be significant and not merely superficial or technical, to warrant reconsideration. This standard ensures that the remedy of successive bail petitions is not misused through repeated filings but is available the initial assessment of the case. petitioner was dismissed as withdrawn on i.e. second petition for grant of a 27.05.2026 forward which would indicate that the petitioner is entitled to maintain his second petition for grant of anticipatory bail. From the en conspectus brought forward in the present petition, no fresh ground or -32050-2026 Court dealing with such second/successive anticipatory bail petition(s). V In case a Court chooses to grant second/successive anticipatory bail petition(s), cogent and lucid reasons are pertinently required to be recorded for granting such plea despite such a plea being second/successive petition(s). In other words, the cause for a Court having successfully countenanced/entertained such second/succe ought to be readily and clearly decipherable from the said order passed. VI Once a plea for anticipatory bail has been dismissed as withdrawn/dismissed as not pressed/dismissed for non or dismissed on merits by the High Court anticipatory bail petition(s) shall be entertained by a Sessions Court.” The present petition is a second petition for grant of anticipatory bail by the petitioner. A second anticipatory bail petition is indeed maintainable under law; however, it requires demonstration of a substantial change in circumstances since the earlier peti proposition of law that such change must be significant and not merely superficial or technical, to warrant reconsideration. This standard ensures that the remedy of successive bail petitions is not misused through repeated but is available only when new and material factors arise that alter the initial assessment of the case. The first anticipatory bail filed by the petitioner was dismissed as withdrawn on i.e. second petition for grant of anticipatory bail has been filed thereafter on 27.05.2026. No fresh substantial change in circumstance has been brought forward which would indicate that the petitioner is entitled to maintain his second petition for grant of anticipatory bail. From the en conspectus brought forward in the present petition, no fresh ground or 5 Court dealing with such second/successive anticipatory bail In case a Court chooses to grant second/successive tition(s), cogent and lucid reasons are pertinently required to be recorded for granting such plea despite such a plea being second/successive petition(s). In other words, the cause for a Court having successfully countenanced/entertained such second/successive petition(s) ought to be readily and clearly decipherable from the said order Once a plea for anticipatory bail has been dismissed as withdrawn/dismissed as not pressed/dismissed for non-prosecution or dismissed on merits by the High Court, no second/successive anticipatory bail petition(s) shall be entertained by a Sessions present petition is a second petition for grant of anticipatory bail by the petitioner. A second anticipatory bail petition is indeed maintainable under law; however, it requires demonstration of a substantial change in circumstances since the earlier petition. It is a settled proposition of law that such change must be significant and not merely superficial or technical, to warrant reconsideration. This standard ensures that the remedy of successive bail petitions is not misused through repeated when new and material factors arise that alter The first anticipatory bail filed by the petitioner was dismissed as withdrawn on 01.04.2026. The instant petition nticipatory bail has been filed thereafter on No fresh substantial change in circumstance has been brought forward which would indicate that the petitioner is entitled to maintain his second petition for grant of anticipatory bail. From the entire factual conspectus brought forward in the present petition, no fresh ground or Court dealing with such second/successive anticipatory bail In case a Court chooses to grant second/successive tition(s), cogent and lucid reasons are pertinently required to be recorded for granting such plea despite such a plea being second/successive petition(s). In other words, the cause for a Court having successfully ssive petition(s) ought to be readily and clearly decipherable from the said order Once a plea for anticipatory bail has been dismissed as prosecution , no second/successive anticipatory bail petition(s) shall be entertained by a Sessions present petition is a second petition for grant of anticipatory bail by the petitioner. A second anticipatory bail petition is indeed maintainable under law; however, it requires demonstration of a tion. It is a settled proposition of law that such change must be significant and not merely superficial or technical, to warrant reconsideration. This standard ensures that the remedy of successive bail petitions is not misused through repeated when new and material factors arise that alter The first anticipatory bail filed by the . The instant petition nticipatory bail has been filed thereafter on No fresh substantial change in circumstance has been brought forward which would indicate that the petitioner is entitled to maintain his tire factual conspectus brought forward in the present petition, no fresh ground or AJAY KUMAR 2026.07.15 10:02 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M- circumstance is made out so as to enable the petitioner to file and maintain the second anticipatory bail petition. However, since the first anticipatory bail petition was merits thereof, this Court deems it appropriate to decide the instant one on merits thereof as well. 8. serious allegations have been l from the record that secret information alleging therein that co and his wife Jeevandeep Kaur were engaged in trafficking narco substances and were also in possession of illegal arms and ammunition. Accordingly, the police allegedly recovered 3 kilograms and 44 grams of heroin, a .30 bore pistol along with a magazine and live cartridges from the possession of co revealed the involvement of other persons and the present petitioner came to be nominated on the basis of material collected during the course of investigation. 9. spot but the record reflects that attributed a role to contraband recovered in the present case. The role assigned to the petitioner is alleged to b substance investigation/trial. The contention that no recovery has been effected from the petition -32050-2026 circumstance is made out so as to enable the petitioner to file and maintain the second anticipatory bail petition. However, since the first anticipatory bail petition was dismissed as withdrawn and there was no adjudication on merits thereof, this Court deems it appropriate to decide the instant one on merits thereof as well. As per the case put forth in the FIR in question, indubitably, serious allegations have been levelled against the petitioner. It emerges from the record that the FIR in question was registered on the basis of a secret information alleging therein that co and his wife Jeevandeep Kaur were engaged in trafficking narco substances and were also in possession of illegal arms and ammunition. Accordingly, the police allegedly recovered 3 kilograms and 44 grams of heroin, a .30 bore pistol along with a magazine and live cartridges from the possession of co-accused Jeevandeep Kaur. The investigation thereafter revealed the involvement of other persons and the present petitioner came to be nominated on the basis of material collected during the course of investigation. In the present case, the petitioner was not apprehe but the record reflects that co-accused Baljinder Singh attributed a role to the petitioner in the procurement and supply of the contraband recovered in the present case. The role assigned to the petitioner is alleged to be connected with the source and supply chain of the narcotic substance which can only be examined during the course of investigation/trial. The contention that no recovery has been effected from the petitioner does not, by itself, entitle her to the conces 6 circumstance is made out so as to enable the petitioner to file and maintain the second anticipatory bail petition. However, since the first anticipatory dismissed as withdrawn and there was no adjudication on merits thereof, this Court deems it appropriate to decide the instant one on As per the case put forth in the FIR in question, indubitably, evelled against the petitioner. It emerges the FIR in question was registered on the basis of a secret information alleging therein that co-accused Baljinder Singh @ Bunty and his wife Jeevandeep Kaur were engaged in trafficking narco substances and were also in possession of illegal arms and ammunition. Accordingly, the police allegedly recovered 3 kilograms and 44 grams of heroin, a .30 bore pistol along with a magazine and live cartridges from the eep Kaur. The investigation thereafter revealed the involvement of other persons and the present petitioner came to be nominated on the basis of material collected during the course of In the present case, the petitioner was not apprehended on the accused Baljinder Singh has specifically in the procurement and supply of the contraband recovered in the present case. The role assigned to the petitioner e connected with the source and supply chain of the narcotic which can only be examined during the course of investigation/trial. The contention that no recovery has been effected from her to the concession of pre-arrest circumstance is made out so as to enable the petitioner to file and maintain the second anticipatory bail petition. However, since the first anticipatory dismissed as withdrawn and there was no adjudication on merits thereof, this Court deems it appropriate to decide the instant one on As per the case put forth in the FIR in question, indubitably, evelled against the petitioner. It emerges the FIR in question was registered on the basis of a accused Baljinder Singh @ Bunty and his wife Jeevandeep Kaur were engaged in trafficking narcotic substances and were also in possession of illegal arms and ammunition. Accordingly, the police allegedly recovered 3 kilograms and 44 grams of heroin, a .30 bore pistol along with a magazine and live cartridges from the eep Kaur. The investigation thereafter revealed the involvement of other persons and the present petitioner came to be nominated on the basis of material collected during the course of nded on the specifically in the procurement and supply of the contraband recovered in the present case. The role assigned to the petitioner e connected with the source and supply chain of the narcotic which can only be examined during the course of investigation/trial. The contention that no recovery has been effected from arrest AJAY KUMAR 2026.07.15 10:02 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M- bail. The stand of the investigating agency before this Court is that the custodial interrogation of the petitioner is required to ascertain the source of supply, identify other members of the network and uncover the complete chain of co her, especially when circumstances strongly link the seriousness of the offence, the stage of investigation public interest in deterring the men Court is of the view that the petitioner does not merit the concession of anticipatory anticipatory bail at this premature stage may seriously prejudice the investigation influencing 10. grant of anticipatory bail, the Court has to equilibrate between safeguard 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 wider impact of such alle no material on record to hold that the petitioner. investigation, appear the petitioner. Thus, it is not appropriate to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner, effective investigation. SCC (Cri) 1039] -32050-2026 bail. The stand of the investigating agency before this Court is that the custodial interrogation of the petitioner is required to ascertain the source of supply, identify other members of the network and uncover the complete chain of conspiracy. Mere non-recovery from the petitioner does not absolve especially when circumstances strongly link the seriousness of the offence, the stage of investigation public interest in deterring the menace of narcotic drug trafficking, this Court is of the view that the petitioner does not merit the concession of anticipatory bail. In the considered opinion of this Court, anticipatory bail at this premature stage may seriously prejudice the investigation and potentially result in tampering with evidence or influencing the material witnesses. It is befitting to mention here that while considering a plea for grant of anticipatory bail, the Court has to equilibrate between safeguard 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 impact of such alleged iniquities on the society. At this stage, there is no material on record to hold that prima facie the petitioner. The material which has come on record and investigation, appears to establish a reasonable basis for the accusation the petitioner. Thus, it is not appropriate to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner, at this stage, as it would necessarily cause impediment in effective investigation. In State v. Anil Sharma, (1997) 7 SCC 187 : 1997 SCC (Cri) 1039], the Supreme Court held as under : (SCC p. 7 bail. The stand of the investigating agency before this Court is that the custodial interrogation of the petitioner is required to ascertain the source of supply, identify other members of the network and uncover the complete recovery from the petitioner does not absolve especially when circumstances strongly link her to the offence. Given the seriousness of the offence, the stage of investigation and the overarching ace of narcotic drug trafficking, this Court is of the view that the petitioner does not merit the concession of In the considered opinion of this Court, the grant of anticipatory bail at this premature stage may seriously prejudice the ongoing and potentially result in tampering with evidence or 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 ged iniquities on the society. At this stage, there is prima facie case is not made out against The material which has come on record and the preliminary to establish a reasonable basis for the accusation the petitioner. Thus, it is not appropriate to grant anticipatory bail to the as it would necessarily cause impediment in v. Anil Sharma, (1997) 7 SCC 187 : 1997 Court held as under : (SCC p.189, para 6) bail. The stand of the investigating agency before this Court is that the custodial interrogation of the petitioner is required to ascertain the source of supply, identify other members of the network and uncover the complete recovery from the petitioner does not absolve Given and the overarching ace of narcotic drug trafficking, this Court is of the view that the petitioner does not merit the concession of the grant of ongoing and potentially result in tampering with evidence or It is befitting to mention here that while considering a plea for ing 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 ged iniquities on the society. At this stage, there is case is not made out against preliminary to establish a reasonable basis for the accusation of the petitioner. Thus, it is not appropriate to grant anticipatory bail to the as it would necessarily cause impediment in v. Anil Sharma, (1997) 7 SCC 187 : 1997 AJAY KUMAR 2026.07.15 10:02 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M- 11. petitioner does not deserve the concession of anticipatory bail in the factual milieu of the case in hand. Moreover, custodial interrogation of the petitioner is necessary for an effective investigation & to unravel the truth. The present petition is, thus, devoid of merits and is hereby dismissed. 12. of opinion upon merits of the case/investigation. 13. July 14, 202 Ajay -32050-2026 “6. We find force in the submission of CBI that custodial interrogation is qualitatively more elicitation-oriented than questioning a suspect who is well-ensconced with a favourable order under case like this, effective interrogation of a 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 i 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 the a responsible manner and that those entrusted with the task of disinterring offences would not conduct themselves as offenders. Accordingly, this Court is of the considered opinion that the petitioner does not deserve the concession of anticipatory bail in the factual of the case in hand. Moreover, custodial interrogation of the petitioner is necessary for an effective investigation & to unravel the truth. The present petition is, thus, devoid of merits and is hereby dismissed. Nothing said hereinabove shall be d of opinion upon merits of the case/investigation. Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed off. 2026 Whether speaking/reasoned: Whether reportable: 8 the submission of CBI that custodial interrogation is iented than questioning a suspect who is ensconced with a favourable order under Section 438 of the Code. In a case like this, effective interrogation of a suspected person is of tremendous 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 degree methods need not be countenanced, for, such an rgument 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 elves as offenders.” Accordingly, this Court is of the considered opinion that the petitioner does not deserve the concession of anticipatory bail in the factual of the case in hand. Moreover, custodial interrogation of the petitioner is necessary for an effective investigation & to unravel the truth. The present petition is, thus, devoid of merits and is hereby dismissed. Nothing said hereinabove shall be deemed to be an expression of opinion upon merits of the case/investigation. Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed off. (SUMEET GOEL) JUDGE Yes/No Yes/No the submission of CBI that custodial interrogation is iented than questioning a suspect who is of the Code. In a case like this, effective interrogation of a suspected person is of tremendous 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- nterrogated. 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 degree methods need not be countenanced, for, such an rgument can be advanced by all accused in all criminal cases. The Court mselves in a responsible manner and that those entrusted with the task of disinterring Accordingly, this Court is of the considered opinion that the petitioner does not deserve the concession of anticipatory bail in the factual of the case in hand. Moreover, custodial interrogation of the petitioner is necessary for an effective investigation & to unravel the truth. eemed to be an expression AJAY KUMAR 2026.07.15 10:02 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document