CRM-M-19909-2025 -1- 209 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-19909-2025 Date of Decision:07.07.2025 Balbir Singh alias Bira …Petitioner vs. State of Punjab …Respondent Coram : Hon’ble Mr. Justice N.S.Shekhawat Present : Ms. Simsi Dhir Malhotra, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. I.P.S. Sabharwal, DAG, Punjab. *** N.S.Shekhawat J. (Oral) 1. The petitioner has filed the present petition under Section 482 of B.N.S.S with a prayer to grant anticipatory bail to him in case FIR No.58, dated 31.03.2025, under Sections 08/18/61/85 of NDPS Act, registered at Police Station Sadar Hoshiarpur, District Hoshiarpur (Annexure P-1). 2. While granting the concession of interim anticipatory bail by this Court on 09.04.2025, this Court had noticed the following contentions raised by learned counsel for the petitioner:- “Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the place of alleged recovery was not owned by the petitioner and even as per the investigation, it was outside the house of the petitioner, over which the petitioner had no control. He further contends that the place of alleged recovery is jointly owned by Kulbir Singh, Satbir Singh and Sukhjit Singh, which is on the backside of the house of the petitioner. Learned counsel further contends that in fact, Kulbir Singh, Prabhjot Kaur and Narinder Kaur had picked up a quarrel with Ranjodh Singh, son of the petitioner on 28.03.2025 and HEMLATA 2025.07.07 23:22 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-19909-2025 -2- caused injuries to him, which is evident from the medico-legally report of Ranjodh Singh (Annexure P-3).Due to the said enmity, the police has planted the present case against the petitioner in collusion with the opposite side. He further contends that the recovery in the present case has already been effected and the custodial interrogation of the petitioner may not be required.” 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has reiterated the submissions and further submits that the petitioner has joined the investigation and his custodial interrogation may not be required. 4. On the other hand, learned State counsel also submits that the petitioner has joined the investigation and is no longer required for further investigation. 5. In view of the above statement made by learned counsel for the parties, the interim order dated 09.04.2025 is made absolute. The petitioner shall continue to join the investigation, as and when called by the Investigating Officer. The petitioner shall also abide by the conditions as specified under Section 482 (2) of B.N.S.S. 6. Pending application(s) stand(s) also disposed of. (N.S.SHEKHAWAT) 07.07.2025 JUDGE hemlata Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/No HEMLATA 2025.07.07 23:22 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document