CRM-M-25729-2026 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 205 CRM-M-25729-2026 (O&M) Date of decision: 06.07.2026 Gurpreet Singh ...Petitioner Versus State of Punjab ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANISHA BATRA Present:- Mr. Ashish Nagar, Advocate for the petitioner. Ms. Ruchika Sabherwal, Senior DAG, Punjab. MANISHA BATRA, J. (Oral) 1. The present petition has been filed under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short ‘BNSS’) seeking the concession of anticipatory bail in FIR No. 0002 dated 10.01.2026 registered under Section 21 of the NDPS Act, 1985 at Police Station City Raikot, District Ludhiana. 2. As per the allegation, on 10.01.2026, a police party apprehended co-accused Soni Kaur near Drain Puli, Talwandi Rai Road, within the jurisdiction of Police Station City Raikot. Upon checking, a plastic envelope allegedly thrown by her, 06 grams of heroin was recovered. She was formally arrested. During investigation, the present petitioner, who is her son, was nominated under Section 29 of the NDPS Act on the allegation of his involvement in the offence. Apprehending his arrest, the petitioner approached the learned Special Court for grant of anticipatory bail, which came to be MOHAMMAD WASEEM ANSARI 2026.07.07 17:17 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-25729-2026 (O&M) -2- dismissed, vide order dated 28.04.2026. 3. It is argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that he has been falsely implicated in this case on the basis of the disclosure statement of the above named co-accused, which cannot be considered to be admissible in evidence. It is further argued that the alleged recovery of 06 grams of heroin is from the possession of co-accused Soni Kaur, who is the petitioner's mother, and nothing has been recovered from the petitioner. It is further submitted that the petitioner has merely been nominated under Section 29 of the NDPS Act without any independent material to connect him with the alleged offence. Since the recovery is of a non-commercial quantity, the rigours of Section 37 of the NDPS Act are not applicable qua him. He is ready to join the investigation. No recovery is to be effected from him. His custodial interrogation is not required. No useful purpose would be served by detaining him into custody. Hence, it is urged that the petition deserves to be allowed. 4. Status report has been filed by the respondent-State. Learned State counsel has argued that the petitioner is not entitled to get benefit of pre-arrest bail as during the course of investigation, sufficient material has surfaced connecting the petitioner with the offence and, therefore, he was rightly nominated under Section 29 of the NDPS Act. It is argued that the investigation is still in progress and custodial interrogation of the petitioner is necessary to unearth the chain relating to procurement and supply of the contraband and to ascertain the role played by him in the alleged conspiracy. It is, therefore, prayed that the petition be dismissed. 5. This Court has heard the rival submissions. 6. The petitioner is alleged to have been nominated during MOHAMMAD WASEEM ANSARI 2026.07.07 17:17 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-25729-2026 (O&M) -3- investigation under Section 29 of the NDPS Act in connection with an FIR arising out of the recovery of heroin from co-accused Soni Kaur. Although the recovery is of a non-commercial quantity and was not effected from the petitioner, the investigation attributes to him a role in the alleged conspiracy. He does not have clean antecedents and as per the status report, he is involved in four more cases under the NDPS Act. The question as to the extent of his involvement is a matter of investigation. In case his custodial interrogation is denied to the investigating agency, the same will leave many glaring loopholes and gaps adversely affecting the investigation. The powers under Section 482 of BNSS are extraordinary and the same are to be exercised sparingly in exceptional circumstances. The judicial discretion conferred upon the Court has to be properly exercised after application of mind as to the nature and gravity of the accusation, possibility of applicant fleeing from justice and other factors to decide whether it is a fit case for grant of anticipatory bail as such grant to some extent interferes in the sphere of investigation of an offence. The Court has also to see that an order of anticipatory bail should not operate as inroad in the normal legal procedure of criminal cases by the trial Court. The custodial interrogation of a suspected person is qualitatively more elicitation oriented than questioning a suspect who is well ensconced with a favourable order under Section 482 of BNSS. The Court must be circumspect while exercising such power for grant of anticipatory bail and it should not be granted as a matter of rule and has to be granted only when the Court is convinced that exceptional circumstances exist to resort to that extra ordinary remedy. In the present case, no such exceptional circumstances warranting exercise of the powers for grant of anticipatory bail by this Court are existing. MOHAMMAD WASEEM ANSARI 2026.07.07 17:17 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-25729-2026 (O&M) -4- As such, this Court is of the considered opinion that the petition does not deserve to be allowed. Accordingly, the same is dismissed. 7. It is made clear that the observations made hereinabove are only for the purpose of deciding the present petition and the same shall not be construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case. 06.07.2026 (MANISHA BATRA) Waseem R. Ansari Waseem R. Ansari Waseem R. Ansari Waseem R. Ansari JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether reportable Yes/No MOHAMMAD WASEEM ANSARI 2026.07.07 17:17 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document