CRM-M No.7787 of 2026 (O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 207 CRM-M No.7787 of 2026 (O&M) Date of Decision:06.07.2026 Gurpreet Singh @ Gopi ......Petitioner Versus State of Punjab ...... Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA PARTAP SINGH Present: Mr. Aditya Anand, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Rohit Bansal, Sr. DAG, Punjab. SURYA PARTAP SINGH , J . (Oral) : For the benefit of anticipatory bail, the instant petition has been filed by the petitioner under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita 2023, in a case arising out of the FIR No.177 dated 21.09.2025, under Sections 21 & 29 of Narcotic Drugs & Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, hereinafter being referred to as ‘NDPS’ only, Police Station Kamboj, District Amritsar Rural. 2. The abovementioned FIR came into being at the instance of 'Sub Inspector Tejender Singh'. It was reported by the above named police officer that on 21.09.2025 when he was leading a team of police officials deputed on patrolling duty, on the basis of suspicion co-accused of petitioner namely ‘Vishal Singh @ Pappi’ was apprehended and from his possession 260 grams of ‘Heroin’ was recovered. 3. It is the case of the prosecution that pursuant to recovery of above MANOJ KUMAR 2026.07.07 11:07 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document CRM-M No.7787 of 2026 (O&M) 2 mentioned contraband, requisite formalities with regard to seizure and sealing of contraband were undertaken and further investigation taken up. According to prosecution during the course of investigation when the above named accused ‘Vishal’ was interrogated he suffered a disclosure statement wherein he nominated the present petitioner as the supplier of the above mentioned contraband. 4. Heard. 5. It has been contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is innocent having no nexus, whatsoever, with the commission of crime, and that he has been falsely implicated in the present case. According to learned counsel for the petitioner the petitioner has clean antecedents, and that the only evidence collected by the investigating agency against the petitioner is the disclosure statement of the co-accused, which is inadmissible in evidence. While alleging that the quantity of recovered contraband from the possession of co-accused is marginally above the lower threshold fixed for commercial quantity of ‘Heroin’, the learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the petitioner is entitled to the benefit of anticipatory bail. 6. The learned State counsel has controverted the above mentioned arguments. According to learned State counsel in the present case the quantity of recovered contraband, from the possession of co-accused, comes within the ambit of commercial quantity, and therefore, for the benefit of anticipatory bail also the rigors of Section-37 of NDPS Act are attracted. While referring to the principles of law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of ‘State of Punjab Vs. Sukwhinder Singh’, 2026 SCC OnLine SC 671 and MANOJ KUMAR 2026.07.07 11:07 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document CRM-M No.7787 of 2026 (O&M) 3 ‘State of Punjab Vs. Balraj Singh @ Billa’, 2026 SCC OnLine SC 1058, the learned State counsel has contended that any of the twin condition does not stands satisfied in the present case, and therefore, the petitioner is not entitled to the benefit of anticipatory bail. 7. It has been observed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India that paramount consideration in the application for bail is nothing but interest of justice for all. According to Hon’ble Supreme Court of India if there is any conflict between the sovereignty of country and personal liberty, undoubtedly, the former shall prevail, particularly, when a war is waged against the nation, be it in the form of supply of drugs, which vitally affect the national economy and health of the people. 8. The record has been perused carefully. 9. A perusal of the record shows that following are the relevant factors which are required to be taken into consideration for a decision in the present petition:- i) that there is no dispute qua the fact that the recovery of contraband from the possession of co-accused comes within the ambit of commercial quantity and as per disclosure statement suffered by the accused, the above mentioned contraband was supplied to the co-accused by the petitioner; ii) that there is nothing on record to show that rigors of Section-37 of NDPS Act stands satisfied in the present case; 10. With regard to relief of anticipatory bail it is relevant to note here that in various judicial pronouncements it has been propounded by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India that the discretion to accord anticipatory bail should be MANOJ KUMAR 2026.07.07 11:07 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document CRM-M No.7787 of 2026 (O&M) 4 exercised sparingly. 11. It is pertinent to mention here that the petitioner is seeking extraordinary remedy by claiming the benefit of anticipatory bail. With regard to such relief, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Srikant Upadhyay v. State of Bihar 2024 SCC OnLine SC 282, has observed that power to grant anticipatory bail is extraordinary power, and that irrespective of the fact that in a number of cases, it has been held that bail is a rule, it cannot; by any stretch of imagination, be said that anticipatory bail is a rule. 12. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the abovementioned case has further observed that rule of anticipatory bail is a question of judicial discretion depending upon the facts and circumstances of each case. According to Hon'ble Apex Court, when called upon to exercise the abovesaid power the Court concerned has to be very cautious, as the grant of interim protection to the accused in serious cases may lead to miscarriage of justice and may hamper the investigation. 13. Similarly, in the case of ‘Nikita Jagganath Shetty alias Nikita Vishwajeet Jadhav v. The State of Maharashtra and another’, (Special Leave Petition (Criminal) No. 10255 of 2024, decided on 21.07.2024), the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has held that anticipatory bail is an exceptional remedy and it ought not be granted in a routine manner. As per the Hon'ble Supreme Court, there must exist strong reasons for extending indulgence of this extraordinary remedy to a person accused of grave offence. 14. In the case of ‘Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia etc. v. State of Punjab’ 1980 SCC (2) 565, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India held that:- MANOJ KUMAR 2026.07.07 11:07 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document CRM-M No.7787 of 2026 (O&M) 5 (1) The power under Section 438, Criminal Procedure Code, is of an extraordinary character and must be exercised sparingly in exceptional cases only. (2) In addition to the limitations mentioned in Section 437, the petitioner must make out a special case for the exercise of the power to grant anticipatory bail. (3) Where a legitimate case for the remand of the offender to the police custody under Section 167(2) can be made out by the investigating agency or a reasonable claim to secure incriminating material from information likely to be received from the offender under Section 27 of the Evidence Act can be made out, the power under Section 438 should not be exercised. 15. It is also relevant to mention here that right of custodial interrogation of an accused is a valuable right of an investigating agency, and if the investigating agency is deprived of such right in the present case the investigation may end up to a dead end, and may not take a proper headway. Thus, it is hereby observed that in the given fact-situation custodial interrogation of the petitioner is necessary, to fix his role and the extent of involvement in the commission of crime. 16. Taking into consideration the above discussed factors and the principles of law which are relevant into the present case it is hereby observed that in the given fact-situation once the quantity of contraband is the commercial quantity and the petitioner has failed to satisfy twin conditions the petitioner is not entitled to the discretionary relief of anticipatory bail. 17. As a sequel to above mentioned discussion, it is hereby held that MANOJ KUMAR 2026.07.07 11:07 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document CRM-M No.7787 of 2026 (O&M) 6 the petitioner is not entitled to the benefit of anticipatory bail. Thus finding no merit, the present petition is hereby dismissed accordingly. 18. However, it is made clear that any observations recorded in the present case, shall have no bearing on the merits of the case. (SURYA PARTAP SINGH) JUDGE 06.07.2026 Manoj Bhutani Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether reportable Yes/No MANOJ KUMAR 2026.07.07 11:07 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document