CRM-M- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT 107 Sahil @ Shammi State of Punjab 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 Section District Hoshiarpur. arrest/anticipatory bail before this Court which was dismissed as withdrawn on 28.05.2025 -46286-2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Sahil @ Shammi V/s State of Punjab CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL Mr. Raj Kumar Gupta, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Gaurav Gurcharan S. Rai, Sr. DAG 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.207 dated 19.11.2024 punishable under Section 15 of the NDPS Act District Hoshiarpur. The petitioner had earlier applied for grant of pre arrest/anticipatory bail before this Court which was dismissed as withdrawn 28.05.2025. The relevant part of said order “This is a petition under Section 482 BNSS seeking anticipatory bail to the petitioner in FIR No.207 dated 19.11.2024 under Section 15 NDPS Act, P.S. Mahilpur, District Hoshiarpur. After arguing for some time, learned counsel for the petitioner prays for withdrawal of the present petition. Prayer is accepted. Dismissed as withdrawn.” 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-46286-2025 Date of decision: 25.08.202 ....Petitioner ....Respondent HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL Raj Kumar Gupta, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Gaurav Gurcharan S. Rai, Sr. DAG 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 19.11.2024, registered for the offences he NDPS Act at Police Station Mahilpur, The petitioner had earlier applied for grant of pre arrest/anticipatory bail before this Court which was dismissed as withdrawn .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:- This is a petition under Section 482 BNSS seeking anticipatory bail to the petitioner in FIR No.207 dated 19.11.2024 under Section 15 NDPS Act, P.S. Mahilpur, District Hoshiarpur. After arguing for some time, learned counsel for the petitioner prays for withdrawal of the present petition. ” .2025 482 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (hereinafter to be referred as ‘the bail to the petitioner in case , registered for the offences Mahilpur, The petitioner had earlier applied for grant of pre- arrest/anticipatory bail before this Court which was dismissed as withdrawn This is a petition under Section 482 BNSS seeking anticipatory bail to the petitioner in FIR No.207 dated 19.11.2024 under Section 15 After arguing for some time, learned counsel for the petitioner AJAY KUMAR 2025.08.26 16:38 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M- of anticipatory/pre 20.08.2025 2. occurrence, ASI Gurnek Singh, alleged that station, he (petitioner herein) information was entered in the rojnamcha and conveyed to officers. investigation kit. On fled from the (Panchayat Member) was associated three black bags were recovered from beneath a haystack near feeding area. On weighing, the total contraband came to 54 husk. The bags were sealed with into police custody vide recovery memo signed by the witnesses. The seal was thereafter recovery, it was alleged that the offence under Section 15, 61, 85 allegations, instant 3. FIR is vitiated received after sunset mandatory requirement complied with the statutory safeguards -46286-2025 Thereafter, the present petition i.e. the second petition for grant of anticipatory/pre-arrest bail has been preferred by the petitioner on 20.08.2025. The gravamen of the FIR in question reflects that on the day of occurrence, ASI Gurnek Singh, alleged that he received reliable secret information that Sah (petitioner herein) had stored poppy husk in his cattle haveli for sale. The information was entered in the rojnamcha and conveyed to Pursuant thereto, the police party proceeded to the investigation kit. On seeing the police party, the accused from the spot. An independent witness (Panchayat Member) was associated and three black bags were recovered from beneath a haystack near feeding area. On weighing, the total contraband came to 54 husk. The bags were sealed with the seal “GS” into police custody vide recovery memo signed by the witnesses. The seal thereafter handed over to ASI Balbir Singh. recovery, it was alleged that the accused offence under Section 15, 61, 85 of the allegations, instant FIR was registered. Learned counsel for the petitioner has iterated that the FIR is vitiated ab initio as it was allegedly registered on secret information received after sunset. Learned counsel has further iterated that the mandatory requirements under Section 42 of the NDPS Act complied with which amounts to a case of complete non the statutory safeguards and hence 2 Thereafter, the present petition i.e. the second petition for grant t bail has been preferred by the petitioner on The gravamen of the FIR in question reflects that on the day of occurrence, ASI Gurnek Singh, alleged that while present at the police received reliable secret information that Sahil @ Shammi poppy husk in his cattle haveli for sale. The information was entered in the rojnamcha and conveyed to the senior Pursuant thereto, the police party proceeded to the spot with the seeing the police party, the accused-petitioner allegedly ndependent witness, namely Ravinder Singh and on search of the haveli premises, three black bags were recovered from beneath a haystack near the cattle feeding area. On weighing, the total contraband came to 54.892 kg of poppy seal “GS”, numbered 1 to 3 and taken into police custody vide recovery memo signed by the witnesses. The seal ver to ASI Balbir Singh. On the basis of aforesaid accused-petitioner had committed an of the NDPS Act. On these set of petitioner has iterated that the present as it was allegedly registered on secret information . Learned counsel has further iterated that the under Section 42 of the NDPS Act have never been amounts to a case of complete non-compliance with and hence rendering the prosecution case Thereafter, the present petition i.e. the second petition for grant t bail has been preferred by the petitioner on The gravamen of the FIR in question reflects that on the day of while present at the police il @ Shammi poppy husk in his cattle haveli for sale. The senior the allegedly Ravinder Singh n search of the haveli premises, the cattle kg of poppy numbered 1 to 3 and taken into police custody vide recovery memo signed by the witnesses. The seal aforesaid committed an On these set of present as it was allegedly registered on secret information . Learned counsel has further iterated that the been compliance with rendering the prosecution case AJAY KUMAR 2025.08.26 16:38 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M- unsustainable in law. conscious possession and identificat unsupported by any corroborative or incriminating evidence. In the absence of credible material, the version Furthermore, raiding party is inherently petitioner has no connection with the alleged recovery and is not the owner of the haveli from where the It has been further a the petitioner as nothing incriminating 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 full next submitted investigation behind the bars. On the basis of the aforementioned submissions, the grant of the instant petition is entreated for. 4. notice) has 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 couns dismissed as withdrawn on prayer was made nor with better particulars. Accordingly, the State counsel has ar instant petition deserves dismissal on this score alone -46286-2025 unsustainable in law. Learned counsel has further submitted t conscious possession and identification of the petitioner unsupported by any corroborative or incriminating evidence. In the absence of credible material, the version of the prosecution is Furthermore, the police narrative that the petitioner fled on seeing raiding party is inherently improbable. It has been further submitted that the petitioner has no connection with the alleged recovery and is not the owner of the haveli from where the contraband is alleged to have It has been further argued that there is no need for custodial interrogation of the petitioner as nothing incriminating 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 full next submitted by the learned counsel that the petitioner is ready to join the investigation and hence no useful purpose would be served by sending behind the bars. On the basis of the aforementioned submissions, the grant of the instant petition is entreated for. Per contra, learned State counsel (on the strength of advance has opposed the grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner 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 Learned State counsel has submitted that the first petition was dismissed as withdrawn on 28.05.2025 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 ar instant petition deserves dismissal on this score alone 3 Learned counsel has further submitted that the alleged ion of the petitioner is baseless and unsupported by any corroborative or incriminating evidence. In the absence of the prosecution is highly doubtful the police narrative that the petitioner fled on seeing the It has been further submitted that the petitioner has no connection with the alleged recovery and is not the owner contraband is alleged to have been recovered rgued that there is no need for custodial interrogation of the petitioner as nothing incriminating 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 that the petitioner is ready to join the no useful purpose would be served by sending him behind the bars. On the basis of the aforementioned submissions, the grant , learned State counsel (on the strength of advance opposed the grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner 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 el has submitted that the first petition was before this Court and neither 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. Learned State hat the alleged baseless and unsupported by any corroborative or incriminating evidence. In the absence highly doubtful. the It has been further submitted that the petitioner has no connection with the alleged recovery and is not the owner recovered. rgued that there is no need for custodial interrogation of the petitioner as nothing incriminating remains to be recovered from him. Learned counsel asserts that the petitioner has no intention of evading the It is that the petitioner is ready to join the him behind the bars. On the basis of the aforementioned submissions, the grant , learned State counsel (on the strength of advance 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 el has submitted that the first petition was before this Court and neither any liberty granted to the petitioner to file afresh gued that the Learned State AJAY KUMAR 2025.08.26 16:38 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M- counsel, opposing the plea in hand on merits, present case was duly registered on the basis of specific and reliable secret information regardi narcotic substances. plea of the petitioner any evidence. The presence of an independent possibility of manipulation or fabrication by the police party. 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 the nature of the offence and the conduct of the petitioner raise serious concerns regarding his involvement in a wider nexus of narcotic trafficking activities. at this stage may seriously the petitioner to tamper with evidence or influence key witnesses gravity of the offence, the larger public interest involved in curbing the menace of drug trafficking, and the potential threat to th 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. this Court in a titled as RCR(Criminal) 65 -46286-2025 counsel, opposing the plea in hand on merits, present case was duly registered on the basis of specific and reliable secret information regarding the involvement of the petitioner narcotic substances. Learned State counsel has further submitted that of the petitioner of false implication any evidence. The presence of an independent possibility of manipulation or fabrication by the police party. 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 the nature of the offence and the conduct of the petitioner raise serious concerns regarding his involvement in a wider nexus of narcotic trafficking activities. Furthermore, at this stage may seriously hamper the ongoing investigation and embolden the petitioner to tamper with evidence or influence key witnesses gravity of the offence, the larger public interest involved in curbing the menace of drug trafficking, and the potential threat to th 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) RCR(Criminal) 65, relevant whereof reads as under: “11. As an epilogue to the above rumination, the following principles emerge: 4 counsel, opposing the plea in hand on merits, submits that the FIR in the present case was duly registered on the basis of specific and reliable secret of the petitioner in trafficking of Learned State counsel has further submitted that the of false implication is baseless and is unsupported by any evidence. The presence of an independent Panch witness rules out the possibility of manipulation or fabrication by the police party. 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 the nature of the offence and the conduct of the petitioner raise serious concerns regarding his involvement in a wider nexus Furthermore, granting bail to the petitioner hamper the ongoing investigation and embolden the petitioner to tamper with evidence or influence key witnesses. 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 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 the FIR in the present case was duly registered on the basis of specific and reliable secret in trafficking of the unsupported by h witness rules out the 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 the nature of the offence and the conduct of the petitioner raise serious concerns regarding his involvement in a wider nexus granting bail to the petitioner hamper the ongoing investigation and embolden Given the gravity of the offence, the larger public interest involved in curbing the e 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 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 AJAY KUMAR 2025.08.26 16:38 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M- 7. anticipatory bail by the petitioner. anticipatory bail by the petitioner. A second anticipatory bail petition is indeed maintainable under law; however, it requires demonstration of a -46286-2025 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 gr 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 merit 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 unique facts/circumstance. Accordingly, this issue is best left to the judicial wisdom and discretion of 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 desp 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) 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 5 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 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 Court dealing with such second/successive anticipatory bail 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 desp 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 lea 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 Second/successive anticipatory bail petition(s) filed under Section 438 of Cr.P.C., 1973 is maintainable in law & hence such ound 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 required to show substantial 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, the Court dealing with such second/successive anticipatory bail 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 lea for anticipatory bail has been dismissed as 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 AJAY KUMAR 2025.08.26 16:38 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M- substantial change in circumstances since the earlier pe proposition of law that such a change must be significant and not merely superficial or technical, to warrant reconsideration. This ensures that the remedy of successive bail petitions is not misused through repeated filings but is available when new and material factors arise assessment of the case. dismissed as withdrawn on petition for grant of anticipato 20.08.2025 forward which would indicate that the petitioner is entitled to maintain his second petition for grant of anticipatory bail. From the entire fact 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 the second anticipatory bail petition. However, since the first anticipatory bail petition was dismissed this Court deems it appropriate 8. serious allegations have been levelled against the petitioner. It emerges from the record that reliable secret information received by petitioner (herein) was and has concealed a large quantity of the same in a haveli adjoining his house with the intention of selling it. On receipt of such infor Investigating Officer made the requisite entry and disclosed spot. On arrival, it was found that the accused gained knowledge of the presence of the police party -46286-2025 substantial change in circumstances since the earlier pe proposition of law that such a change must be significant and not merely superficial or technical, to warrant reconsideration. This ensures that the remedy of successive bail petitions is not misused through repeated filings s available when new and material factors arise assessment of the case. The first anticipatory bail filed by the petitioner was dismissed as withdrawn on 28.05.2025. The instant petition i.e. second petition for grant of anticipatory bail has been filed thereafter on .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 fact 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 the second anticipatory bail petition. However, since the first anticipatory bail petition was dismissed as withdrawn this Court deems it appropriate to also examine the petition on merits. 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 ibid was registered on the basis of specific and reliable secret information received by the police. It was disclosed that the petitioner (herein) was allegedly indulging in the illicit trade of poppy husk and has concealed a large quantity of the same in a haveli adjoining his house with the intention of selling it. On receipt of such infor Investigating Officer made the requisite entry and disclosed spot. On arrival, it was found that the accused gained knowledge of the presence of the police party 6 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 ensures that the remedy of successive bail petitions is not misused through repeated filings s available when new and material factors arise which alter the earlier The first anticipatory bail filed by the petitioner was . The instant petition i.e. second ry 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 circumstance is made out so as to enable the petitioner to file and maintain the second anticipatory bail petition. However, since the first anticipatory as withdrawn without adjudication on merits, to also examine the petition on merits. As per the case put forth in the FIR in question, indubitably, serious allegations have been levelled against the petitioner. It emerges was registered on the basis of specific and the police. It was disclosed that the indulging in the illicit trade of poppy husk and has concealed a large quantity of the same in a haveli adjoining his house with the intention of selling it. On receipt of such information the Investigating Officer made the requisite entry and proceeded to the disclosed spot. On arrival, it was found that the accused-petitioner, having gained knowledge of the presence of the police party, fled from the scene. tition. It is a settled proposition of law that such a change must be significant and not merely superficial or technical, to warrant reconsideration. This ensures that the remedy of successive bail petitions is not misused through repeated filings earlier The first anticipatory bail filed by the petitioner was . The instant petition i.e. second ry 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 ual 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 the second anticipatory bail petition. However, since the first anticipatory adjudication on merits, As per the case put forth in the FIR in question, indubitably, serious allegations have been levelled against the petitioner. It emerges was registered on the basis of specific and the police. It was disclosed that the indulging in the illicit trade of poppy husk and has concealed a large quantity of the same in a haveli adjoining his mation the proceeded to the having fled from the scene. AJAY KUMAR 2025.08.26 16:38 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M- Before undertaking the Ram, Member Panchayat of village, was duly associated with the proceedings. In his presence whereby three plastic sacks concealed beneath a haysack on the southern side of the haveli were recovered. 9. 54.892 kgs of poppy husk has been effec the accused quantity as defined under the NDPS Act. At this stage, there is no material to cast doubt upon the prosecution version, which is duly supported by association of an independent witness and compliance of mandatory procedural safeguards. It is well settled that once the recovery of commercial quantity is established, the rigours of Section 37 of the NDPS Act come into operation. The statutory presum 54 of the NDPS Act also strengthens the case of the prosecution burden upon the accused to rebut the presumption of conscious possession. In the absence of any such rebuttal, the prosecution case cannot be disbelieved at this stage. 10. not absolve h offence. The nature of the offence and the fact that the investigation is at a nascent stage ne 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 the stage of investigation, the possibility of tampering with evidence or -46286-2025 Before undertaking the search, an independent witness namely Mangat Ram, Member Panchayat of village, was duly associated with the proceedings. In his presence, the search of the premises was conducted whereby three plastic sacks concealed beneath a haysack on the southern side of the haveli were recovered. From the record, it is prima facie 54.892 kgs of poppy husk has been effected from the haveli in possession of the accused-petitioner. The said quantity is well above the commercial quantity as defined under the NDPS Act. At this stage, there is no material to cast doubt upon the prosecution version, which is duly supported by association of an independent witness and compliance of mandatory procedural safeguards. It is well settled that once the recovery of commercial quantity is established, the rigours of Section 37 of the NDPS Act come into operation. The statutory presum 54 of the NDPS Act also strengthens the case of the prosecution burden upon the accused to rebut the presumption of conscious possession. In the absence of any such rebuttal, the prosecution case cannot be ved at this stage. Mere non-recovery of the contraband not absolve him especially when circumstantial evidence offence. The nature of the offence 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 cannot be brushed aside. Given the ser the stage of investigation, the possibility of tampering with evidence or 7 search, an independent witness namely Mangat Ram, Member Panchayat of village, was duly associated with the the search of the premises was conducted whereby three plastic sacks concealed beneath a haysack on the southern prima facie evident that a recovery of ted from the haveli in possession of petitioner. The said quantity is well above the commercial quantity as defined under the NDPS Act. At this stage, there is no material to cast doubt upon the prosecution version, which is duly supported by association of an independent witness and compliance of mandatory procedural safeguards. It is well settled that once the recovery of commercial quantity is established, the rigours of Section 37 of the NDPS Act come into operation. The statutory presumption under Sections 35 and 54 of the NDPS Act also strengthens the case of the prosecution shifting the burden upon the accused to rebut the presumption of conscious possession. In the absence of any such rebuttal, the prosecution case cannot be of the contraband from the petitioner does im especially when circumstantial evidence links him to the offence. The nature of the offence and the fact that the investigation is at a cessitate 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 . Given the seriousness of the offence, the stage of investigation, the possibility of tampering with evidence or search, an independent witness namely Mangat Ram, Member Panchayat of village, was duly associated with the the search of the premises was conducted whereby three plastic sacks concealed beneath a haysack on the southern evident that a recovery of ted from the haveli in possession of petitioner. The said quantity is well above the commercial quantity as defined under the NDPS Act. At this stage, there is no material to cast doubt upon the prosecution version, which is duly supported by association of an independent witness and compliance of mandatory procedural safeguards. It is well settled that once the recovery of commercial quantity is established, the rigours of Section 37 of the NDPS ption under Sections 35 and the burden upon the accused to rebut the presumption of conscious possession. In the absence of any such rebuttal, the prosecution case cannot be from the petitioner does him to the offence. The nature of the offence and the fact that the investigation is at a cessitate 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 iousness of the offence, the stage of investigation, the possibility of tampering with evidence or AJAY KUMAR 2025.08.26 16:38 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M- obstructing justice, and the overarching public interest in deterring the menace of narcotic drug trafficking, this Court is of the view that the petitioner view of the serious allegations, the custodial interrogation of the is indispensable and crucial for unearthing the broader conspiracy identifying knowledge or possession anticipatory bail at this premature stage may seriously prejudice the ongoing investigation 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 for fair and free investigation as also the deeper and wide impact of such alleged iniquities on the society. At this stage, there is no material on record to hold the petitioner. investigation, appear to be establish a reasonable basis for the accusation of the petitioner. Thus, it is not appropriate to grant anticipa petitioner, as it would necessarily cause impediment in effective investigation. 1039], the Suprem -46286-2025 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, i view of the serious allegations, the custodial interrogation of the is indispensable and crucial for unearthing the broader conspiracy identifying the other potential accomplices that may be within the exclusive knowledge or possession of the petitioner anticipatory bail at this premature stage may seriously prejudice the ongoing investigation and potentially result in tampering with evidence or encing material witnesses. 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 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. At this stage, there is no material on record to hold that prima facie 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 not appropriate to grant anticipa petitioner, as it would necessarily cause impediment in effective investigation. In State v. Anil Sharma, (1997) 7 SCC 187 : 1997 SCC (Cri) , the Supreme Court held as under : (SCC “6. We find force in the submission of CBI that custodial interrogation is qualitatively more elicitation-oriented well-ensconced with a favourable order under case like this, effective interrogation of a suspected person 8 obstructing justice, and the overarching public interest in deterring the menace of narcotic drug trafficking, this Court is of the view that the does not merit the concession of bail at this juncture. Moreover, i view of the serious allegations, the custodial interrogation of the petitioner is indispensable and crucial for unearthing the broader conspiracy and plices that may be within the exclusive of the petitioner. Moreover, 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 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. At this stage, there is prima facie case is not made out against 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 not appropriate to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner, as it would necessarily cause impediment in effective Anil Sharma, (1997) 7 SCC 187 : 1997 SCC (Cri) e Court held as under : (SCC p.189, para 6) “6. We find force in the submission of CBI that custodial interrogation is oriented than questioning a suspect who is nsconced with a favourable order under Section 438 of the Code. In a like this, effective interrogation of a suspected person is of tremendous obstructing justice, and the overarching public interest in deterring the menace of narcotic drug trafficking, this Court is of the view that the does not merit the concession of bail at this juncture. Moreover, in petitioner and plices that may be within the exclusive 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 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. At this stage, there is case is not made out against The material which has come on record and preliminary investigation, appear to be establish a reasonable basis for the accusation of tory bail to the petitioner, as it would necessarily cause impediment in effective Anil Sharma, (1997) 7 SCC 187 : 1997 SCC (Cri) “6. We find force in the submission of CBI that custodial interrogation is than questioning a suspect who is of the Code. In a is of tremendous AJAY KUMAR 2025.08.26 16:38 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 of the petitioner is necessary for an effective investigation & to unravel the truth. The present petition is, thus 13. of opinion upon merits of the case/investigation. 14. August 25 Ajay -46286-2025 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. 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 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 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. August 25, 2025 Whether speaking/reasoned: Whether reportable: 9 advantage in disinterring many useful informations and also materials which aled. 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 argument can be advanced by all accused in all criminal cases. The Court hat 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 of the petitioner is necessary for an effective investigation & to unravel the truth. , 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 advantage in disinterring many useful informations and also materials which aled. 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 The argument that the custodial interrogation is fraught with the danger of the person being degree methods need not be countenanced, for, such an argument can be advanced by all accused in all criminal cases. The Court hat 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 case in hand. Moreover, custodial interrogation of the petitioner is necessary for an effective investigation & to unravel the truth. Nothing said hereinabove shall be deemed to be an expression AJAY KUMAR 2025.08.26 16:38 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document