214 CRM-M-42143-2025 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-42143-2025 Date of decision: 10.09.2025 HIRA SINGH ….Petitioner Versus STATE OF PUNJAB ....Respondent CORAM:- HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE RUPINDERJIT CHAHAL Present:- Ms. Kuljit Kaur, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Amit Shukla, DAG Punjab. ..… 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.62 dated 09.03.2025 under Section 22 of the NDPS Act and Section 42 of the Prisons Act, registered at Police Station Islamabad, District Police Commissionerate Amritsar. 2. On 25.08.2025, following order had been passed: - “ 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.62 dated 09.03.2025 registered under Section 22 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 and Section 42 of the Prisons Act, at Police Station Islamabad, District Police Commissionerate Amritsar. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case. He argued that earlier the petitioner had moved an application for grant of anticipatory bail before the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Amritsar and the learned Judge had granted interim bail to the present petitioner taking into consideration the statement of SI Davinder Singh who stated that the present Puneet Sharma 2025.09.11 13:31 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment 214 CRM-M-42143-2025 -2- petitioner has been nominated on the basis of an inquiry made from Vishal Chopra, but during his interrogation, the said Vishal Chopra suffered a disclosure statement that he did not know the present petitioner nor he ever procured mobile phones or intoxicating tablets from the present petitioner Hira Singh. It was further stated by SI Davinder Singh that in case, the present petitioner joins/cooperate the investigation, then his custodial interrogation is not necessary. The petitioner was ordered to be released on interim bail but his counsel did not inform him about the said order and as such, he could not comply with the order dated 06.06.2025 passed by the Court and ultimately on 10.07.2025, his interim bail was dismissed for want of prosecution. Learned counsel further argued that as stated by the IO before trial Court, the custodial interrogation of the present petitioner is not required and he is ready and willing to join the investigation as and when called upon to do so by the investigating agency. On the other hand, learned State counsel has opposed the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail. While referring to the status report, it is argued that the allegations levelled against the petitioner are serious in nature. List on 10.09.2025. 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. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in compliance of the order dated 25.08.2025 passed by this Court, the petitioner has joined the investigation. 4. Learned counsel for the State, on instructions from S.I. Davinder Singh, has submitted that the petitioner has joined the investigation and is no longer required for further investigation. 5. In view of the statement made by learned State counsel, the interim order dated 25.08.2025 is made absolute. The petitioner shall continue to join investigation, as and when called by the Investigating Puneet Sharma 2025.09.11 13:31 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment 214 CRM-M-42143-2025 -3- Officer and shall also abide by the conditions as provided under Section 482(2) of the BNSS. (RUPINDERJIT CHAHAL) 10.09.2025 JUDGE puneet i) Whether speaking/reasoned? Yes/No ii) Whether reportable? Yes/No Puneet Sharma 2025.09.11 13:31 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment