CRM-M- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT 102 Gurjant Singh State of Haryana CORAM: Present: SUMEET GOEL 1. Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (hereinafter to be referred as ‘the BNSS’) for grant of bearing FIR No. under Sections District Karnal arrest/anticipatory bail before this Court which was dismissed as withdrawn on 13.06.2025 of anticipatory/pre 05.08.2025 -42654-2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Gurjant Singh V/s State of Haryana CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL Mr. R.P.S. Jammu, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Tarun Aggarwal, Additional Advocate General, Haryana. ***** SUMEET GOEL, J. (Oral) The present petition is the second attempt Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (hereinafter to be referred as ‘the for grant of pre-arrest/anticipatory bearing FIR No.294 dated 19.05.2025, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 18, 25 of the NDPS Act District Karnal. The petitioner had earlier applied for grant of pre arrest/anticipatory bail before this Court which was dismissed as withdrawn 13.06.2025. The relevant part of said order “After arguing for some time, learned counsel for the petitioner seeks to withdraw the present petition in hand. 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 05.08.2025. 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-42654-2025 Date of decision: 07.08.202 ....Petitioner ....Respondent HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL R.P.S. Jammu, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Tarun Aggarwal, Additional Advocate General, Haryana. ***** 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 , registered for the offences punishable of the NDPS Act at Police Station Sector 32- The petitioner had earlier applied for grant of pre arrest/anticipatory bail before this Court which was dismissed as withdrawn .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:- After arguing for some time, learned counsel for the petitioner seeks to withdraw the present petition in hand. Thereafter, the present petition i.e. the second petition for grant arrest bail has been preferred by the petitioner on .2025 Mr. Tarun Aggarwal, Additional Advocate General, Haryana. 482 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (hereinafter to be referred as ‘the bail to the petitioner in case , registered for the offences punishable -33, The petitioner had earlier applied for grant of pre- arrest/anticipatory bail before this Court which was dismissed as withdrawn After arguing for some time, learned counsel for the petitioner Thereafter, the present petition i.e. the second petition for grant arrest bail has been preferred by the petitioner on AJAY KUMAR 2025.08.07 17:40 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M- 2. 18.05.2025, ASI Satish Kumar alongwith other p duty in a government vehicle they spotted a black Hyundai car (Reg. No.HR07AB police party identified himself as Jaipal Singh. He disclosed that the absconding person was Gurjant Singh opium. Search of the vehicle led to the recovery of 332 grams of opium and a purse containing driving license, Aa Singh (petitioner herein) and the vehicle registration certificate. No valid permit or license for the contraband was produced. Following due procedure, 3. was not apprehended at the spot and the allegation that he managed to flee in the presence of 5/6 armed police officials is highly improbable and raises serious doubts about the ver counsel has further iterated that the alleged recovery of 332 grams of opium, which falls under the non from the co attributable to the present petitioner. Learned counsel has further submitted that the petitioner has merely taken a lift in the vehicle approximately 30 minutes prior to the incident and had inadvertently left behind his purse, which containe purse from the vehicle is the sole basis on which the petitioner has been implicated in the present case. -42654-2025 The gravamen of the FIR in question reflects that on 18.05.2025, ASI Satish Kumar alongwith other p duty in a government vehicle. When they reached near village Phoosgarh, they spotted a black Hyundai car (Reg. No.HR07AB party, one person fled the scene while the other was apprehended ed himself as Jaipal Singh. He disclosed that the absconding person was Gurjant Singh (petitioner herein) and that they were en route to se earch of the vehicle led to the recovery of 332 grams of opium and a purse containing driving license, Aadhaar card, 04 ATM cards of Gurjant Singh (petitioner herein) and the vehicle registration certificate. No valid permit or license for the contraband was produced. Following due procedure, accused Jaipal Singh was arrested and presented before the Court. Learned counsel for the petitioner has iterated that the petitioner was not apprehended at the spot and the allegation that he managed to flee in the presence of 5/6 armed police officials is highly improbable and raises serious doubts about the veracity of the version of the prosecution. Learned counsel has further iterated that the alleged recovery of 332 grams of opium, which falls under the non-commercial quantity, has already been effected from the co-accused Jaipal@ Sahajpal and hence there is attributable to the present petitioner. Learned counsel has further submitted that the petitioner has merely taken a lift in the vehicle approximately 30 minutes prior to the incident and had inadvertently left behind his purse, which contained his identification documents. The recovery of the said purse from the vehicle is the sole basis on which the petitioner has been implicated in the present case. It has been further argued that there is no 2 The gravamen of the FIR in question reflects that on 18.05.2025, ASI Satish Kumar alongwith other police officials was on patrol hen they reached near village Phoosgarh, they spotted a black Hyundai car (Reg. No.HR07AB-120). On seeing the , one person fled the scene while the other was apprehended who ed himself as Jaipal Singh. He disclosed that the absconding person and that they were en route to se earch of the vehicle led to the recovery of 332 grams of opium and dhaar card, 04 ATM cards of Gurjant Singh (petitioner herein) and the vehicle registration certificate. No valid permit or license for the contraband was produced. Following due Jaipal Singh was arrested and presented before the Court. Learned counsel for the petitioner has iterated that the petitioner was not apprehended at the spot and the allegation that he managed to flee in the presence of 5/6 armed police officials is highly improbable and raises acity of the version of the prosecution. Learned counsel has further iterated that the alleged recovery of 332 grams of opium, commercial quantity, has already been effected accused Jaipal@ Sahajpal and hence there is no recovery attributable to the present petitioner. Learned counsel has further submitted that the petitioner has merely taken a lift in the vehicle approximately 30 minutes prior to the incident and had inadvertently left behind his purse, d his identification documents. The recovery of the said purse from the vehicle is the sole basis on which the petitioner has been It has been further argued that there is no The gravamen of the FIR in question reflects that on olice officials was on patrol hen they reached near village Phoosgarh, 120). On seeing the who ed himself as Jaipal Singh. He disclosed that the absconding person and that they were en route to sell earch of the vehicle led to the recovery of 332 grams of opium and dhaar card, 04 ATM cards of Gurjant Singh (petitioner herein) and the vehicle registration certificate. No valid permit or license for the contraband was produced. Following due Jaipal Singh was arrested and presented before the Court. Learned counsel for the petitioner has iterated that the petitioner was not apprehended at the spot and the allegation that he managed to flee in the presence of 5/6 armed police officials is highly improbable and raises acity of the version of the prosecution. Learned counsel has further iterated that the alleged recovery of 332 grams of opium, commercial quantity, has already been effected no recovery attributable to the present petitioner. Learned counsel has further submitted that the petitioner has merely taken a lift in the vehicle approximately 30 minutes prior to the incident and had inadvertently left behind his purse, d his identification documents. The recovery of the said purse from the vehicle is the sole basis on which the petitioner has been It has been further argued that there is no AJAY KUMAR 2025.08.07 17:40 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M- need for custodial interrogation of the petitio remains to be recovered from him. has no intention of evading the process of law and undertakes to cooperate fully with the investigation. the petitioner is ready to join the investigation would be served by sending aforementioned submissions, the grant of the instant petition is entreated for. 4. notice) has that the present petition is not maintainable petition for anticipatory bail, without there being any sub circumstances, thereby failing both on procedural grounds and on merits. Learned State counsel has submitted that the first petition was dismissed as withdrawn on nor was any particulars. Accordingly, the State counsel has argued that the instant petition deserves dismissal on this score alone opposing the plea in hand on merits, named by co spot. It is further contended that on seeing the police party, the petitioner, who was present in the vehicle, fled from the spot, while the co apprehended. According to learned State counsel, the immediate flight of the petitioner from the petitioner. Learned State counsel asserts that although the recovery may fall within the non -42654-2025 need for custodial interrogation of the petitio remains to be recovered from him. Learned counsel asserts that the petitioner has no intention of evading the process of law and undertakes to cooperate fully with the investigation. It is next submitted the petitioner is ready to join the investigation would be served by sending him behind the bars. On the basis of the aforementioned submissions, the grant of the instant petition is entreated for. Conversely, learned State counsel has opposed the grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner by arguing that the present petition is not maintainable petition for anticipatory bail, without there being any sub circumstances, thereby failing both on procedural grounds and on merits. Learned State counsel has submitted that the first petition was dismissed as withdrawn on 13.06.2025 before this Court and neither any prayer was made 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 alone opposing the plea in hand on merits, submits that named by co-accused Jaipal Singh at the time of his apprehension . It is further contended that on seeing the police party, the petitioner, who was present in the vehicle, fled from the spot, while the co hended. According to learned State counsel, the immediate flight of the petitioner from the scene is a strong incriminating circumstance against the petitioner. Learned State counsel asserts that although the recovery may fall within the non-commercial category, the nature of the offence and the 3 need for custodial interrogation of the petitioner, as nothing incriminating Learned counsel asserts that the petitioner has no intention of evading the process of law and undertakes to cooperate It is next submitted by the learned counsel that the petitioner is ready to join the investigation and hence no useful purpose him behind the bars. On the basis of the aforementioned submissions, the grant of the instant petition is entreated for. State counsel (on the strength of advance opposed the grant of 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 before this Court and neither any prayer was made iberty 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 alone. Learned State counsel, submits that petitioner was clearly accused Jaipal Singh at the time of his apprehension on the . It is further contended that on seeing the police party, the petitioner, who was present in the vehicle, fled from the spot, while the co-accused was hended. According to learned State counsel, the immediate flight of the scene is a strong incriminating circumstance against the petitioner. Learned State counsel asserts that although the recovery may tegory, the nature of the offence and the ner, as nothing incriminating Learned counsel asserts that the petitioner has no intention of evading the process of law and undertakes to cooperate that no useful purpose him behind the bars. On the basis of the aforementioned submissions, the grant of the instant petition is entreated for. (on the strength of advance opposed the grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner by arguing as it constitutes a second stantial change in circumstances, thereby failing both on procedural grounds and on merits. Learned State counsel has submitted that the first petition was dismissed as before this Court and neither any prayer was made iberty granted to the petitioner to file afresh with better particulars. Accordingly, the State counsel has argued that the instant Learned State counsel, petitioner was clearly on the . It is further contended that on seeing the police party, the petitioner, accused was hended. According to learned State counsel, the immediate flight of the scene is a strong incriminating circumstance against the petitioner. Learned State counsel asserts that although the recovery may tegory, the nature of the offence and the AJAY KUMAR 2025.08.07 17:40 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M- conduct of the petitioner raise serious concerns regarding his involvement in a wider nexus of narcotic trafficking activities. the petitioner at this stage may seriously hamper the on and embolden the petitioner to tamper with evidence or influence key witnesses, many of whom may be susceptible to pressure or intimidation. Given the gravity of the offence, the larger public interest involved in curbing the menace of conduct of the trial, it is most respectfully submitted that the petitioner does not deserve the concession of anticipatory bail and it is prayed that the present petition deserves to be dismissed. 5. gone through the available record of the case. 6. Court in a titled as RCR(Criminal) 65 -42654-2025 conduct of the petitioner raise serious concerns regarding his involvement in a wider nexus of narcotic trafficking activities. the petitioner at this stage may seriously hamper the on and embolden the petitioner to tamper with evidence or influence key witnesses, many of whom may be susceptible to pressure or intimidation. 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 most respectfully submitted that the petitioner does not deserve the concession of anticipatory bail and it is prayed that the present petition deserves to be dismissed. 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) minal) 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 4 conduct of the petitioner raise serious concerns regarding his involvement in a wider nexus of narcotic trafficking activities. Furthermore, granting bail to the petitioner at this stage may seriously hamper the ongoing investigation and embolden the petitioner to tamper with evidence or influence key witnesses, many of whom may be susceptible to pressure or intimidation. Given the gravity of the offence, the larger public interest involved in drug trafficking, and the potential threat to the fair conduct of the trial, it is most respectfully submitted that the petitioner does not deserve the concession of anticipatory bail and it is prayed that the present petition deserves to be dismissed. 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 this 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 Section 438 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 withdrawn/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 required to show substantial change in circumstances and showing ere superficial or ostensible change would not suffice. No exhaustive guidelines can possibly be laid down as to what would constitute substantial change in circumstances as conduct of the petitioner raise serious concerns regarding his involvement in granting bail to going investigation and embolden the petitioner to tamper with evidence or influence key witnesses, many of whom may be susceptible to pressure or intimidation. Given the gravity of the offence, the larger public interest involved in drug trafficking, and the potential threat to the fair conduct of the trial, it is most respectfully submitted that the petitioner does not deserve the concession of anticipatory bail and it is prayed that the and have It would be apposite to refer herein to a judgment passed by this 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 Section 438 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 ecution 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 No exhaustive guidelines can possibly be laid down as to what would constitute substantial change in circumstances as AJAY KUMAR 2025.08.07 17:40 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 petition. It is a settled proposition of law that such a change must be significant and not merely superficial or technical, to warrant reconsideration. This standard ensures that the remedy of successive b filings but is available when new and material factors arise that alter the initial assessment of the case. petitioner was dismissed as withdrawn on i.e. second petition for grant of anticipatory bail has been filed thereafter on 05.08.2025 forward which would indicate that the petitioner is entitled to maintain his second pet conspectus brought forward in the present petition, no fresh ground or circumstance is made out so as to enable the petitioner to file and maintain -42654-2025 every case has its own unique facts/circumstance. Accordingly, this issue is best left to the judicial wisdom and discretion of the 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/successive petition(s) 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, no second/successive anticipatory bail petition(s) 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 ntial change in circumstances since the earlier petition. It is a settled proposition of law that such a change must be significant and not merely superficial or technical, to warrant reconsideration. This standard ensures that the remedy of successive bail petition filings but is available 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 05.08.2025. 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 circumstance is made out so as to enable the petitioner to file and maintain 5 every case has its own unique facts/circumstance. Accordingly, this best left to the judicial wisdom and discretion of the Court dealing with such second/successive anticipatory bail petition(s). In case a Court chooses to grant second/successive anticipatory bail petition(s), cogent and lucid reasons are equired 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 ipherable from the said order passed. 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 ntial change in circumstances since the earlier petition. It is a settled proposition of law that such a change must be significant and not merely superficial or technical, to warrant reconsideration. This standard ensures ail petitions is not misused through repeated filings but is available when new and material factors arise that alter the The first anticipatory bail filed by the petitioner was dismissed as withdrawn on 13.06.2025. The instant petition i.e. second petition for grant of anticipatory 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 ition for grant of anticipatory bail. From the entire factual conspectus brought forward in the present petition, no fresh ground or circumstance is made out so as to enable the petitioner to file and maintain every case has its own unique facts/circumstance. Accordingly, this best left to the judicial wisdom and discretion of the Court dealing with such second/successive anticipatory bail petition(s). In case a Court chooses to grant second/successive anticipatory bail petition(s), cogent and lucid reasons are equired 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 Once a plea for anticipatory bail has been dismissed as prosecution or dismissed on merits by the High Court, no second/successive 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 ntial change in circumstances since the earlier petition. It is a settled proposition of law that such a change must be significant and not merely superficial or technical, to warrant reconsideration. This standard ensures is not misused through repeated filings but is available when new and material factors arise that alter the The first anticipatory bail filed by the tant petition i.e. second petition for grant of anticipatory 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 ition for grant of anticipatory bail. From the entire factual conspectus brought forward in the present petition, no fresh ground or circumstance is made out so as to enable the petitioner to file and maintain AJAY KUMAR 2025.08.07 17:40 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M- the second anticipatory bail petition. However 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. 8. serious allegations have been levelled against the petitioner. It emerges from the record that on 18.05.2025, the police while on patrol duty near village Phoosgarh intercepted a black Hyundai occupant fled the scene while the other identified as Jaipal Singh was apprehended. He disclosed that the absconding person was Gurjant Singh (petitioner herein) and that they were transporting opium for sale. A search of the vehicle led to the recovery of containing the petitioner’s driving licence, Aadhaar card, four ATM cards and the vehicle accused Jaipal Singh disclosed that the person who had fled from the sp was none other than Gurjant Singh (petitioner herein) and further revealed that both of them were en route to deliver opium to a prospective buyer. 9. apprehended on the spot and is alleged to hav noticing the police. His identity was disclosed by the co initial stage and his official identification documents were recovered from within the vehicle. While the petitioner seeks to explain his presence indirectly by stating that he had taken a lift and inadvertently left his purse behind, this explanation appears to be an afterthought and is not supported by any independent material. The act of fleeing from the scene, particularly -42654-2025 the second anticipatory bail petition. However 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 serious allegations have been levelled against the petitioner. It emerges from the record that on 18.05.2025, the police while on patrol duty near village Phoosgarh intercepted a black Hyundai car. Upon noticing upant fled the scene while the other identified as Jaipal Singh was apprehended. He disclosed that the absconding person was Gurjant Singh (petitioner herein) and that they were transporting opium for sale. A search of the vehicle led to the recovery of 332 grams of opium and a purse containing the petitioner’s driving licence, Aadhaar card, four ATM cards and the vehicle registration certificate. During preliminary interrogation, co accused Jaipal Singh disclosed that the person who had fled from the sp was none other than Gurjant Singh (petitioner herein) and further revealed that both of them were en route to deliver opium to a prospective buyer. In the present case, the petitioner was admittedly not apprehended on the spot and is alleged to hav noticing the police. His identity was disclosed by the co initial stage and his official identification documents were recovered from within the vehicle. While the petitioner seeks to explain his presence indirectly by stating that he had taken a lift and inadvertently left his purse behind, this explanation appears to be an afterthought and is not supported by any independent material. The act of fleeing from the scene, particularly 6 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 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 on 18.05.2025, the police while on patrol duty near village car. Upon noticing the police, one upant fled the scene while the other identified as Jaipal Singh was apprehended. He disclosed that the absconding person was Gurjant Singh (petitioner herein) and that they were transporting opium for sale. A search 332 grams of opium and a purse containing the petitioner’s driving licence, Aadhaar card, four ATM cards During preliminary interrogation, co accused Jaipal Singh disclosed that the person who had fled from the sp was none other than Gurjant Singh (petitioner herein) and further revealed that both of them were en route to deliver opium to a prospective buyer. In the present case, the petitioner was admittedly not apprehended on the spot and is alleged to have fled from the vehicle upon noticing the police. His identity was disclosed by the co-accused at the very initial stage and his official identification documents were recovered from within the vehicle. While the petitioner seeks to explain his presence indirectly by stating that he had taken a lift and inadvertently left his purse behind, this explanation appears to be an afterthought and is not supported by any independent material. The act of fleeing from the scene, particularly , 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 question, indubitably, serious allegations have been levelled against the petitioner. It emerges from the record that on 18.05.2025, the police while on patrol duty near village the police, one upant fled the scene while the other identified as Jaipal Singh was apprehended. He disclosed that the absconding person was Gurjant Singh (petitioner herein) and that they were transporting opium for sale. A search 332 grams of opium and a purse containing the petitioner’s driving licence, Aadhaar card, four ATM cards During preliminary interrogation, co- accused Jaipal Singh disclosed that the person who had fled from the spot was none other than Gurjant Singh (petitioner herein) and further revealed In the present case, the petitioner was admittedly not e fled from the vehicle upon accused at the very initial stage and his official identification documents were recovered from within the vehicle. While the petitioner seeks to explain his presence indirectly by stating that he had taken a lift and inadvertently left his purse behind, this explanation appears to be an afterthought and is not supported by any independent material. The act of fleeing from the scene, particularly AJAY KUMAR 2025.08.07 17:40 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M- in the presence of pol especially when coupled with other corroborative material such as the recovery of personal documents from the vehicle containing the contraband. 10. is non-commercial in nature but this by itself, cannot be treated as a mitigating factor to overlook the gravity of the offence or the potential role of the petitioner in the broader chain of illicit narcotic supply. the matter involv disclosure of the co thoroughly investigated. Mere non absolve him especially when circumstances strongly The nature of the offence, the mode of operation and the fact that the investigation is at a nascent stage necessitate custodial interrogation. Furthermore, the apprehension expressed by the prosecution that the petitioner, if r who may be vulnerable to coercion also appears to be not without basis. Given the seriousness of the offence, the stage of investigation, the possibility of tampering with evidence or obstruct overarching 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 bail at this juncture. Moreover, i allegations, the c crucial for unearthing the broader conspiracy potential accomplices that may be within the exclusive knowledge or possession -42654-2025 in the presence of police personnel, cannot be lightly brushed aside especially when coupled with other corroborative material such as the recovery of personal documents from the vehicle containing the contraband. It is also pertinent to note that while the quantity of co commercial in nature but this by itself, cannot be treated as a mitigating factor to overlook the gravity of the offence or the potential role of the petitioner in the broader chain of illicit narcotic supply. the matter involves transportation of narcotic substances for sale as per the disclosure of the co-accused and the role of the petitioner thoroughly investigated. Mere non-recovery from the petitioner does not absolve him especially when circumstances strongly The nature of the offence, the mode of operation and the fact that the investigation is at a nascent stage necessitate custodial interrogation. Furthermore, the apprehension expressed by the prosecution that the petitioner, if released on bail, may abscond or attempt to influence witnesses who may be vulnerable to coercion also appears to be not without basis. Given the seriousness of the offence, the stage of investigation, the possibility of tampering with evidence or obstruct overarching 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 bail at this juncture. Moreover, i allegations, the custodial interrogation of the crucial for unearthing the broader conspiracy potential accomplices that may be within the exclusive knowledge or possession of the petitioner. Moreover, the grant of anticipatory bail at this 7 ice personnel, cannot be lightly brushed aside especially when coupled with other corroborative material such as the recovery of personal documents from the vehicle containing the contraband. It is also pertinent to note that while the quantity of contraband commercial in nature but this by itself, cannot be treated as a mitigating factor to overlook the gravity of the offence or the potential role of the petitioner in the broader chain of illicit narcotic supply. Furthermore, narcotic substances for sale as per the accused and the role of the petitioner needs to be recovery from the petitioner does not absolve him especially when circumstances strongly link him to the offence The nature of the offence, the mode of operation and the fact that the investigation is at a nascent stage necessitate custodial interrogation. Furthermore, the apprehension expressed by the prosecution that the eleased on bail, may abscond or attempt to influence witnesses who may be vulnerable to coercion also appears to be not without basis. Given the seriousness of the offence, the stage of investigation, the possibility of tampering with evidence or obstructing justice, and the overarching 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 bail at this juncture. Moreover, in view of the serious ustodial interrogation of the petitioner is indispensable and crucial for unearthing the broader conspiracy and identifying the other potential accomplices that may be within the exclusive knowledge or the grant of anticipatory bail at this ice personnel, cannot be lightly brushed aside especially when coupled with other corroborative material such as the recovery of personal documents from the vehicle containing the contraband. ntraband commercial in nature but this by itself, cannot be treated as a mitigating factor to overlook the gravity of the offence or the potential role Furthermore, narcotic substances for sale as per the needs to be recovery from the petitioner does not offence. The nature of the offence, the mode of operation and the fact that the investigation is at a nascent stage necessitate custodial interrogation. Furthermore, the apprehension expressed by the prosecution that the eleased on bail, may abscond or attempt to influence witnesses who may be vulnerable to coercion also appears to be not without basis. Given the seriousness of the offence, the stage of investigation, the ing justice, and the overarching public interest in deterring the menace of narcotic drug trafficking, this Court is of the view that the petitioner does not merit the n view of the serious is indispensable and other potential accomplices that may be within the exclusive knowledge or the grant of anticipatory bail at this AJAY KUMAR 2025.08.07 17:40 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M- premature stage may seriously prejudice the ongoing investigation potentially result in tampering with evidence or influencing material witnesses. 11. 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 f wide impact of such alleged iniquities on the society. It is imperative that every person in the Society can expect an atmosphere free from foreboding & fear of any transgression. At this stage, there i hold that material which has come on record and preliminary investigation, appear to be establish a reasonable basis for the accusation of the petitioner. Thus, it is not appropriate to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner, as it would necessarily cause impediment in effective investigation. Sharma, (1997) 7 SCC 187 : 1997 SCC (Cri) 1039] held as under : (SCC p. -42654-2025 premature stage may seriously prejudice the ongoing investigation potentially result in tampering with evidence or influencing material witnesses. It is befitting to mention here that while considering a plea 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 wide impact of such alleged iniquities on the society. It is imperative that every person in the Society can expect an atmosphere free from foreboding & fear of any transgression. At this stage, there i hold that prima facie case is not made out against the petitioner. material which has come on record and preliminary investigation, appear to be establish a reasonable basis for the accusation of the petitioner. Thus, it is ot appropriate to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner, as it would necessarily cause impediment in effective investigation. Sharma, (1997) 7 SCC 187 : 1997 SCC (Cri) 1039] held as under : (SCC p.189, para 6) “6. We find force in the submission of CBI that custodial interrogation is qualitatively more elicitation-oriented ensconced with a favourable order under like this, effective interrogation of a suspected person 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 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 c 8 premature stage may seriously prejudice the ongoing investigation and potentially result in tampering with evidence or influencing material It is befitting to mention here that while considering a plea 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 or fair and free investigation as also the deeper and wide impact of such alleged iniquities on the society. It is imperative that every person in the Society can expect an atmosphere free from foreboding & fear of any transgression. At this stage, there is no material on record to case is not made out against the petitioner. The material which has come on record and preliminary investigation, appear to be establish a reasonable basis for the accusation of the petitioner. Thus, it is ot appropriate to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner, 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 “6. We find force in the submission of CBI that custodial interrogation is oriented than questioning a suspect who is well nsconced with a favourable order under Section 438 of the Code. In a 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 der 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 and potentially result in tampering with evidence or influencing material 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 or fair and free investigation as also the deeper and wide impact of such alleged iniquities on the society. It is imperative that every person in the Society can expect an atmosphere free from foreboding s no material on record to The material which has come on record and preliminary investigation, appear to be establish a reasonable basis for the accusation of the petitioner. Thus, it is ot appropriate to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner, as it would Anil e Court “6. We find force in the submission of CBI that custodial interrogation is than questioning a suspect who is well- of the Code. In a case 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- der 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 ountenanced, for, such an AJAY KUMAR 2025.08.07 17:40 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M- 12. petitioner does not deserve the concession of anticipatory bail in the factual milieu of the case in hand. Moreover, custodial interrogation is necessary for an effective investigation & to unravel the truth. The petition is, thus, devoid of merits and is hereby dismissed. 13. of opinion upon merits of the 14. August 07 Ajay -42654-2025 argument 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 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 is necessary for an effective investigation & to unravel the truth. The 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. 7, 2025 Whether speaking/reasoned: Whether reportable: 9 argument 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 ces 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 deemed to be an expression case/investigation. Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed off. (SUMEET GOEL) JUDGE Yes/No Yes/No argument 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 Accordingly, this Court is of the considered opinion that the petitioner does not deserve the concession of anticipatory bail in the factual of the petitioner present Nothing said hereinabove shall be deemed to be an expression AJAY KUMAR 2025.08.07 17:40 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document