CRM-M-35368-2026 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 103 CRM-M-35368-2026 Date of Decision: 06.07.2026 SURESH GUJJAR ...PETITIONER VERSUS STATE OF HARYANA ...RESPONDENT CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE H.S.GREWAL. Present: Mr. D.S.Virk, Advocate for the petitioner. H.S. GREWAL, J. (ORAL) 1. This petition has been filed under Section 482 of BNSS (438 of Cr.P.C) with a prayer for grant of anticipatory bail in case FIR No. 0181 dated 01.06.2026 under Section 17(b) of NDPS Act registered at Police Station Ellenabad, District Sirsa. 2. The case of the prosecution is that 103 grams and 52 milligrams of opium was recovered from the conscious possession of the co-accused, namely Vijay Kumar. During the course of investigation, the co-accused suffered a disclosure statement alleging that the recovered contraband had been supplied to him by the present petitioner. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was not named in the FIR and has been implicated solely on the basis of the disclosure statement made by the co-accused, which is inadmissible in evidence. It is further contended that no recovery has been effected from the possession of the petitioner and except for the disclosure statement, there is no material available on record against the petitioner to connect him with the alleged offence.The petitioner is willing and ready to join the investigation. RENU RAWAT 2026.07.07 16.22 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh CRM-M-35368-2026 2 4. Notice of motion. 5. Mr. Rakesh Kumar Jangra, learned AAG, Haryana, accepts notice on behalf of the respondent-State and vehemently opposes the prayer made by learned counsel for the petitioner on the ground that the petitioner is involved in two other cases under the NDPS Act, one of which has been registered in the State of Rajasthan. 6. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record. 7. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, particularly the involvement of the petitioner in similar offences under the NDPS Act, which reflects criminal antecedents and indicates that the petitioner is a habitual offender, this Court does not find any ground to grant the concession of anticipatory bail to the petitioner. Accordingly, the present petition is dismissed. (H.S.GREWAL) 06.07.2026 JUDGE renu Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No Whether Reportable: Yes/No RENU RAWAT 2026.07.07 16.22 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh