CRM-M-19644 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA 103 Baldev Singh State of Punjab Coram : Present: Rajesh Bhardwaj, J. (Oral) 1. BNSS, 2023, is for No.155 dated 1985, at Police Station 2. patrolling on 30.10.2024, found a Maruti Swift Dezire car on the side of the road, which was police party suspected some narcotic substance in the bags lying in the car. search, three plastic found containing 15 Kgs of poppy husk, where rest of the two bags were found containing 20 Kgs of poppy husk each. Thus, in total, 55 Kgs. of poppy husk was recovered from three bags. During inves petitioner Baldev Singh was the owner of the vehicle, from which contraband had been recovered. The petitioner, thus, was arrayed as an accused. Apprehending arrest, the petitioner approached the grant of concession of anticipatory bail, however, after hearing both the sides, the said relief was declined to him vide order dated 19644-2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Baldev Singh Versus State of Punjab Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajesh Bhardwaj Mr. Lalit Singla, Advocate, for the petitioner. **** Rajesh Bhardwaj, J. (Oral) Prayer in the present petition, filed under Section 482 of the BNSS, 2023, is for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner in a case FIR dated 30.10.2024, registered under Sections , at Police Station Jhunir, District Mansa Succinctly, the facts of the case are that the police party, while trolling on 30.10.2024, found a Maruti Swift Dezire car on the side of the was turned turtle. No-one was found in the vehicle. However, the police party suspected some narcotic substance in the bags lying in the car. hree plastic bags were recovered from the vehicle. The first bag was found containing 15 Kgs of poppy husk, where rest of the two bags were found containing 20 Kgs of poppy husk each. Thus, in total, 55 Kgs. of poppy husk was recovered from three bags. During inves petitioner Baldev Singh was the owner of the vehicle, from which contraband had been recovered. The petitioner, thus, was arrayed as an accused. Apprehending arrest, the petitioner approached the ant of concession of anticipatory bail, however, after hearing both the sides, the said relief was declined to him vide order dated - 1 - IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-19644-2025 Decided on:09.04.2025 ...Petitioner ...Respondent Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajesh Bhardwaj Prayer in the present petition, filed under Section 482 of the grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner in a case FIR , registered under Sections 15(c), of the NDPS Act, Jhunir, District Mansa. Succinctly, the facts of the case are that the police party, while trolling on 30.10.2024, found a Maruti Swift Dezire car on the side of the one was found in the vehicle. However, the police party suspected some narcotic substance in the bags lying in the car. On bags were recovered from the vehicle. The first bag was found containing 15 Kgs of poppy husk, where rest of the two bags were found containing 20 Kgs of poppy husk each. Thus, in total, 55 Kgs. of poppy husk was recovered from three bags. During investigation, it was found that the petitioner Baldev Singh was the owner of the vehicle, from which contraband had been recovered. The petitioner, thus, was arrayed as an accused. Apprehending arrest, the petitioner approached the Special Court, Mansa for ant of concession of anticipatory bail, however, after hearing both the sides, the said relief was declined to him vide order dated 18.03.2025. Hence, ...Petitioner ...Respondent Prayer in the present petition, filed under Section 482 of the grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner in a case FIR of the NDPS Act, Succinctly, the facts of the case are that the police party, while trolling on 30.10.2024, found a Maruti Swift Dezire car on the side of the one was found in the vehicle. However, the On bags were recovered from the vehicle. The first bag was found containing 15 Kgs of poppy husk, where rest of the two bags were found containing 20 Kgs of poppy husk each. Thus, in total, 55 Kgs. of poppy husk tigation, it was found that the petitioner Baldev Singh was the owner of the vehicle, from which contraband had been recovered. The petitioner, thus, was arrayed as an accused. for ant of concession of anticipatory bail, however, after hearing both the sides, .03.2025. Hence, VINOD KUMAR 2025.04.28 17:52 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-19644 aggrieved against the said order, the petitioner is before this Court by way of filing the present petit 3. the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case neither the petitioner is named in the FIR nor any recovery has been effected from his conscious po registered in the name of the petitioner nor he was present at the spot at the time of alleged recovery. It is submitted that investigating agencies have failed to produce any evidence regarding o petitioner. He submits that admittedly, recovery of the contraband has been effected from an abandoned car and, thus, conscious possession of the contraband recovered is not proved against the petitioner. While pray grant of concession of anticipatory bail, learned counsel for the petitioner relies upon a judgment of the Supreme Court Raghuvanshi vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh, judgment of the Rajas Jasa Ram @ Jasiya @ Jaswant @ Jasu vs. State of Rajasthan, through PP, SB Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.12055/2024, decided on 08.10.2024. 4. 5. accepts notice on behalf of the respondent the bail application and it has been submitted that the contraband weighing 55 Kgs of poppy husk has been recovered is owned by the petitioner. It is submitted that even if the car is not transferred in the name of the petitioner, it has come on record during investigation that the petitioner has already purchased the said car. He submits that the recovered contraband is a commercial that the present petition, being devoid of merit, deserves to be dismissed. 19644-2025 aggrieved against the said order, the petitioner is before this Court by way of filing the present petition. Learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently contended that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case neither the petitioner is named in the FIR nor any recovery has been effected his conscious possession. He submits that registered in the name of the petitioner nor he was present at the spot at the time of alleged recovery. It is submitted that investigating agencies have failed to produce any evidence regarding ownership of the car in the name of the petitioner. He submits that admittedly, recovery of the contraband has been effected from an abandoned car and, thus, conscious possession of the contraband recovered is not proved against the petitioner. While pray grant of concession of anticipatory bail, learned counsel for the petitioner relies upon a judgment of the Supreme Court rendered in the case of Raghuvanshi vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh, judgment of the Rajasthan High Court rendered in the case of Jasa Ram @ Jasiya @ Jaswant @ Jasu vs. State of Rajasthan, through PP, SB Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.12055/2024, decided on 08.10.2024. Notice of motion. On asking of the Court, Mr. Tarun accepts notice on behalf of the respondent-State and has vehemently opposed the bail application and it has been submitted that the contraband weighing 55 Kgs of poppy husk has been recovered is owned by etitioner. It is submitted that even if the car is not transferred in the name of the petitioner, it has come on record during investigation that the petitioner has already purchased the said car. He submits that the recovered contraband is a commercial quantity and the investigation is at threshold. that the present petition, being devoid of merit, deserves to be dismissed. - 2 - aggrieved against the said order, the petitioner is before this Court by way of Learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently contended that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case. He submits that neither the petitioner is named in the FIR nor any recovery has been effected . He submits that neither the car in question was registered in the name of the petitioner nor he was present at the spot at the time of alleged recovery. It is submitted that investigating agencies have failed wnership of the car in the name of the petitioner. He submits that admittedly, recovery of the contraband has been effected from an abandoned car and, thus, conscious possession of the contraband recovered is not proved against the petitioner. While praying for grant of concession of anticipatory bail, learned counsel for the petitioner relies rendered in the case of Rakesh Kumar Raghuvanshi vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh, (SC) 2025 INSC 96 and a than High Court rendered in the case of Jassa Ram @ Jasa Ram @ Jasiya @ Jaswant @ Jasu vs. State of Rajasthan, through PP, SB Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.12055/2024, decided on 08.10.2024. On asking of the Court, Mr. Tarun Aggarwal, Sr. DAG, Punjab, State and has vehemently opposed the bail application and it has been submitted that the car from which the contraband weighing 55 Kgs of poppy husk has been recovered is owned by etitioner. It is submitted that even if the car is not transferred in the name of the petitioner, it has come on record during investigation that the petitioner has already purchased the said car. He submits that the recovered contraband is quantity and the investigation is at threshold. He, thus, submits that the present petition, being devoid of merit, deserves to be dismissed. aggrieved against the said order, the petitioner is before this Court by way of Learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently contended that . He submits that neither the petitioner is named in the FIR nor any recovery has been effected neither the car in question was registered in the name of the petitioner nor he was present at the spot at the time of alleged recovery. It is submitted that investigating agencies have failed wnership of the car in the name of the petitioner. He submits that admittedly, recovery of the contraband has been effected from an abandoned car and, thus, conscious possession of the ing for grant of concession of anticipatory bail, learned counsel for the petitioner relies Rakesh Kumar (SC) 2025 INSC 96 and a Jassa Ram @ Jasa Ram @ Jasiya @ Jaswant @ Jasu vs. State of Rajasthan, through PP, Aggarwal, Sr. DAG, Punjab, State and has vehemently opposed car from which the contraband weighing 55 Kgs of poppy husk has been recovered is owned by etitioner. It is submitted that even if the car is not transferred in the name of the petitioner, it has come on record during investigation that the petitioner has already purchased the said car. He submits that the recovered contraband is He, thus, submits VINOD KUMAR 2025.04.28 17:52 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-19644 6. available record, it is deciphered that been effected from the car turtle on the side of the road. During investigation, it is found that this car had already been purchased by the petitioner that the petitioner is neither owner of the car nor any conscious possession against him has been proved as he was not present at the time of occurrence. There is no dispute regarding the law settled in the judgments relied upon by learned counsel for the petitioner, however, this Court is dealing with the anticipatory bail filed by the petitioner the present stage commercial quantity, therefore, attracted in the present case. No.06 dated 16.11.2018, registered under Sections 18 read with Section 29 of the NDPS Act, 1985, at Police Station SSOC at SAS Nagar Mo he was convicted and his appeal against conviction is pending before this Court. Since the investigation is at threshold, therefore, the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner cannot be appreciated at this stage where he has approached this Court for the grant of concession of anticipatory bail. However, the same could be appreciated at the relevant stage. 7. are given under Section 482 (1) & (2) of 19644-2025 After hearing learned counsel for the parties and perusing the available record, it is deciphered that recove been effected from the car owned by the petitioner, which was found turned turtle on the side of the road. During investigation, it is found that this car had already been purchased by the petitioner though it is argued bef that the petitioner is neither owner of the car nor any conscious possession against him has been proved as he was not present at the time of occurrence. There is no dispute regarding the law settled in the judgments relied upon by counsel for the petitioner, however, this Court is dealing with the anticipatory bail filed by the petitioner and stage. Since the recovery effected falls under the category of commercial quantity, therefore, the bar under Section 37 of the NDPS Act is attracted in the present case. The petitioner No.06 dated 16.11.2018, registered under Sections 18 read with Section 29 of the NDPS Act, 1985, at Police Station SSOC at SAS Nagar Mo he was convicted and his appeal against conviction is pending before this Since the investigation is at threshold, therefore, the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner cannot be appreciated at this stage e has approached this Court for the grant of concession of anticipatory bail. However, the same could be appreciated at the relevant stage. For the consideration of anticipatory bail, the statutory parameters are given under Section 482 (1) & (2) of BNSS which reads as under: “482. Direction for grant of bail to person apprehending arrest: 1. When any person has reason to believe that he may be arrested on an accusation of having committed a non may apply to the High Court or direction under this section; and that Court may, if it thinks fit, direct that in the event of such arrest, he shall be released on bail. - 3 - After hearing learned counsel for the parties and perusing the recovery of 55 Kgs. of poppy husk has owned by the petitioner, which was found turned turtle on the side of the road. During investigation, it is found that this car had hough it is argued before this Court that the petitioner is neither owner of the car nor any conscious possession against him has been proved as he was not present at the time of occurrence. There is no dispute regarding the law settled in the judgments relied upon by counsel for the petitioner, however, this Court is dealing with the and the same cannot be appreciated at . Since the recovery effected falls under the category of the bar under Section 37 of the NDPS Act is The petitioner was also involved in case FIR No.06 dated 16.11.2018, registered under Sections 18 read with Section 29 of the NDPS Act, 1985, at Police Station SSOC at SAS Nagar Mohali, in which he was convicted and his appeal against conviction is pending before this Since the investigation is at threshold, therefore, the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner cannot be appreciated at this stage e has approached this Court for the grant of concession of anticipatory bail. However, the same could be appreciated at the relevant stage. For the consideration of anticipatory bail, the statutory parameters BNSS which reads as under:- “482. Direction for grant of bail to person apprehending arrest: When any person has reason to believe that he may be arrested on an accusation of having committed a non-bailable offence, he may apply to the High Court or the Court of Session for a direction under this section; and that Court may, if it thinks fit, direct that in the event of such arrest, he shall be released on After hearing learned counsel for the parties and perusing the ry of 55 Kgs. of poppy husk has owned by the petitioner, which was found turned turtle on the side of the road. During investigation, it is found that this car had ore this Court that the petitioner is neither owner of the car nor any conscious possession against him has been proved as he was not present at the time of occurrence. There is no dispute regarding the law settled in the judgments relied upon by counsel for the petitioner, however, this Court is dealing with the the same cannot be appreciated at . Since the recovery effected falls under the category of the bar under Section 37 of the NDPS Act is case FIR No.06 dated 16.11.2018, registered under Sections 18 read with Section 29 of hali, in which he was convicted and his appeal against conviction is pending before this Since the investigation is at threshold, therefore, the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner cannot be appreciated at this stage e has approached this Court for the grant of concession of anticipatory For the consideration of anticipatory bail, the statutory parameters When any person has reason to believe that he may be arrested bailable offence, he the Court of Session for a direction under this section; and that Court may, if it thinks fit, direct that in the event of such arrest, he shall be released on VINOD KUMAR 2025.04.28 17:52 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-19644 8. Sharma, (1997) 7 SCC 187 19644-2025 2. Sharma, (1997) 7 SCC 187 19644-2025 2. When the High Court or the Court of Session makes a direction under sub-section (1), it may include such conditions in such directions in the light of the facts of the particular case, as it may think fit, including (i) a condition that the person shall make himself available for interrogation by a police officer as and when required; (ii) a condition that the person shall not, directly or indirectly, make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer; (iii) a condition that the person shall not leave India without the previous permission of the Court; (iv) such other condition as may be imposed under sub section (3) of section 480, as if the bail were granted under that section.” Hon'ble Supreme Court in State represented by (1997) 7 SCC 187 has held as under: “6. We find force in the submission of the CBI that custodial interrogation is qualitatively more elicitation oriented than questioning a suspect who is well ensconded with a favorable order under 438 if 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. Succession such interrogation would elude if the suspected person knows that he is well protected and insulted by a pre the time he interrogated. Very often interrogation in such a condition would reduce to a mere ritual. The argument tha 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 task of disinterring offences would not conduct themselves as offenders.” - 4 - When the High Court or the Court of Session makes a direction it may include such conditions in such directions in the light of the facts of the particular case, as it a condition that the person shall make himself available for interrogation by a police officer as and when a condition that the person shall not, directly or indirectly, make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or to a condition that the person shall not leave India without the previous permission of the Court; such other condition as may be imposed under sub section (3) of section 480, as if the bail were granted Hon'ble Supreme Court in State represented by CBI Vs. Anil has held as under:- “6. We find force in the submission of the CBI that custodial interrogation is qualitatively more elicitation oriented than questioning s well ensconded with a favorable order under Section if 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. uccession such interrogation would elude if the suspected person knows that he is well protected and insulted by a pre-arrest bail during the time he 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 olice Officers would conduct themselves in task of disinterring offences would not conduct themselves as When the High Court or the Court of Session makes a direction it may include such conditions in such directions in the light of the facts of the particular case, as it a condition that the person shall make himself available for interrogation by a police officer as and when a condition that the person shall not, directly or indirectly, make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or to a condition that the person shall not leave India without such other condition as may be imposed under sub- section (3) of section 480, as if the bail were granted CBI Vs. Anil “6. We find force in the submission of the CBI that custodial interrogation is qualitatively more elicitation oriented than questioning Section if 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. uccession such interrogation would elude if the suspected person arrest bail during the time he interrogated. Very often interrogation in such a condition t 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 olice Officers would conduct themselves in task of disinterring offences would not conduct themselves as VINOD KUMAR 2025.04.28 17:52 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-19644 9. Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia Vs. State of Punjab, AIR 1980 SC 1632 and again reiterated that while considering the anticipatory bail the Court is to take into consideration the factors like gravity of offence, chances of accused tampering with the evidence and probabilities of his fleeing from justice etc. The Court shou as well. The anticipatory bail is an extraordinary discretion which should be exercised in the extraordinary circumstances. 10. apparent that the complicity of the petitioner has been The investigation is at its threshold. Thus, granting anticipatory bail to the petitioner at this stage would scuttle the ongoing investigation. 11. Court is of the opinion that the petitioner do not qualify for exercising the extraordinary power by this Court in his favour. Resultantly, the present petition, being devoid of any merit, is hereby dism 12. on the merits of the case. April 09, 2025 vinod* 19644-2025 Hon’ble Apex Court in plethora of judicial precedents including Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia Vs. State of Punjab, AIR 1980 SC 1632 and again reiterated that while considering the anticipatory bail the Court is to take into consideration the factors like gravity of offence, chances of accused tampering with the evidence and probabilities of his fleeing from justice etc. The Court should be circumspect about the impact of its decision on the society as well. The anticipatory bail is an extraordinary discretion which should be exercised in the extraordinary circumstances. Weighing the facts of the case on the anvil of the law sett apparent that the complicity of the petitioner has been The investigation is at its threshold. Thus, granting anticipatory bail to the petitioner at this stage would scuttle the ongoing investigation. In view of the facts and circumstances of the present case, this Court is of the opinion that the petitioner do not qualify for exercising the extraordinary power by this Court in his favour. Resultantly, the present petition, being devoid of any merit, is hereby dism Nothing said herein shall be construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case. April 09, 2025 Whether Speaking/Reasoned: Whether Reportable: - 5 - Hon’ble Apex Court in plethora of judicial precedents including Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia Vs. State of Punjab, AIR 1980 SC 1632, has time and again reiterated that while considering the anticipatory bail the Court is to take into consideration the factors like gravity of offence, chances of accused tampering with the evidence and probabilities of his fleeing from justice etc. ld be circumspect about the impact of its decision on the society as well. The anticipatory bail is an extraordinary discretion which should be exercised in the extraordinary circumstances. Weighing the facts of the case on the anvil of the law settled, it is apparent that the complicity of the petitioner has been prima facie established. The investigation is at its threshold. Thus, granting anticipatory bail to the petitioner at this stage would scuttle the ongoing investigation. he facts and circumstances of the present case, this Court is of the opinion that the petitioner do not qualify for exercising the extraordinary power by this Court in his favour. Resultantly, the present petition, being devoid of any merit, is hereby dismissed. Nothing said herein shall be construed as an expression of opinion (Rajesh Bhardwaj) Judge Whether Speaking/Reasoned: NO/YES NO/YES Hon’ble Apex Court in plethora of judicial precedents including , has time and again reiterated that while considering the anticipatory bail the Court is to take into consideration the factors like gravity of offence, chances of accused tampering with the evidence and probabilities of his fleeing from justice etc. ld be circumspect about the impact of its decision on the society as well. The anticipatory bail is an extraordinary discretion which should be led, it is established. The investigation is at its threshold. Thus, granting anticipatory bail to the he facts and circumstances of the present case, this Court is of the opinion that the petitioner do not qualify for exercising the extraordinary power by this Court in his favour. Resultantly, the present Nothing said herein shall be construed as an expression of opinion VINOD KUMAR 2025.04.28 17:52 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document