In the High Court for the States of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh 110 CRM-M-29752-2026 (O&M) Date of Decision:- 25.05.2026 Ankit … Petitioner Versus The State of Haryana ... Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUBHAS MEHLA Present:- Mr. Dhruv Gupta, Advocate with Ms. Titiksha, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Karan Veer Singh, Sr. DAG, Haryana. ***** SUBHAS MEHLA , J. (Oral) 1. The instant petition under Section 482 of BNSS, 2023 (438 of Cr.P.C.), has been filed for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner in case bearing FIR No.164 dated 05.05.2026, registered under Section 20 of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short - ‘the NDPS’) at Police Station Ambala Cantt., District Ambala. 2. Briefly allegation against the petitioner is that co-accused Parveen Kumar @ Vinay, from whom, 3.580 kilograms of ganja was recovered, nominated the present petitioner as supplier of the said contraband. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner prayed for concession of anticipatory bail to the petitioner on the following grounds: GEETA RANI 2026.05.26 18:03 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment Punjab & Haryana High Court at Chandigarh ( 110) CRM-M-29752-2026 (O&M) ( 2 ) i. Petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case on the basis of disclosure statement of co-accused, which is inadmissible in evidence; ii. Except the disclosure statement of co-accused, there is no material on record to suggest that the petitioner is involved in this case; iii. Even the alleged recovery of contraband was made from co- accused, which falls intermediate quantity; and iv. The petitioner is ready and willing to join the investigation. 4. Notice of motion. 5. Mr. Karan Veer Singh, Sr. DAG, Haryana, accepted notice on behalf of the respondent-State and opposed the prayer made by learned counsel for the petitioner on the following grounds: i. That co-accused, namely, Parveen Kumar, who was apprehended with the contraband, has nominated the petitioner as supplier of the alleged recovered contraband; ii. Co-accused was in touch with the present petitioner through ‘WhatsApp’ ;and screenshots of ‘WhatsApp’ chats have surfaced during investigation, which shows that they were in contact with each other; iii. Petitioner is a habitual offender and involved in drug trafficking as there is one more FIR under NDPS Act qua the petitioner; and iv. Custodial interrogation of the petitioner is necessary to unearth the true facts of the case and for proper investigation in GEETA RANI 2026.05.26 18:03 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment Punjab & Haryana High Court at Chandigarh ( 110) CRM-M-29752-2026 (O&M) ( 3 ) the matter to know details of other persons involved in nexus of supply of narcotics as well as to recover drug money. 6. Heard. 7. After considering the rival submissions of learned counsel for the parties and the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court finds no merit in the present petition on the following grounds: i. The petitioner is alleged to be supplier of the contraband which is recovered from the co-accused; ii. As submitted by learned State counsel, during investigation, screenshots of ‘WhatsApp’ chats have surfaced which show that the petitioner was in constant touch with co- accused from whom contraband was recovered; iii. Petitioner does not have clean antecedents as he is involved in one more case of similar nature; and iv. Custodial interrogation of the petitioner is necessary to unearth the true facts of the case and for proper investigation of the case. 8. As anticipatory bail is a discretionary relief, which can be granted only in extra-ordinary circumstances, only when it would not impede investigation or progress of the case. 9. Hon’ble Supreme Court has emphasised the importance of custodial interrogation in case titled as ‘CBI Vs. Anil Sharma, 1997 AIR Supreme Court 63806’ decided on 03.08.1997, by holding that many useful informations and concealed materials may be elicited from a suspect in GEETA RANI 2026.05.26 18:03 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment Punjab & Haryana High Court at Chandigarh ( 110) CRM-M-29752-2026 (O&M) ( 4 ) custody, than a suspect who is well-protected by an order of anticipatory bail, in which case, interrogation may be reduced to a mere ritual. 10. Moreover, Hon’ble Apex Court in Anarul S.K. Vs. The State of West Bengal (SLP (Crl.) No.12621-2024 has observed that the grant of anticipatory bail in cases involving Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) is a very serious issue. 11. In view of the above, this Court finds no ground to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner and the present petition stands dismissed. 12. Nothing observed hereinabove shall be construed to be an expression of opinion by this Court on the merits of the case. ( SUBHAS MEHLA ) 25.05.2026 JUDGE Geeta Whether speaking /reasoned Yes / No Whether Reportable Yes / No GEETA RANI 2026.05.26 18:03 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment Punjab & Haryana High Court at Chandigarh