103 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-13788-2026 DECIDED ON: 08.07.2026 GURPREET SINGH .....PETITIONER VERSUS STATE OF HARYANA .....RESPONDENT CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY VASHISTH. Present: Mr. Sandeep Siwach, Advocate, for Mr. Kuldeep S. Siwach, Advocate, for the petitioner. SANJAY VASHISTH , J (ORAL) 1. Present petition has been filed by the petitioner, seeking grant of anticipatory bail, in case, FIR No.23 dated 11.02.2026, under Sections 21(b) (Act No.61) of NDPS Act and section 27-A of NDPS Act added later on, registered at Police Station Sadar Ratia, District Fatehabad. 2. As per the case of prosecution, accused Satnam and Sandeep were travelling together on a motorcycle when they were apprehended, and recovery of 6 grams of heroin was allegedly effected from the conscious possession of accused Satnam. It is the further case of the prosecution that, during investigation, both the accused, upon their arrest, disclosed the name of the petitioner's brother, Gurjit Singh, alleging that an amount of Rs.3,000/- had been transferred to his bank account on 10.02.2026 at the instance of the present petitioner, namely Gurpreet Singh. LAVISHA 2026.07.08 18:23 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document PHHC, Chandigarh CRM-M-13788-2026 -2- 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that recovery was effected exclusively from co-accused Satnam and no contraband whatsoever was recovered from co-accused Sandeep, who was merely the pillion rider on the motorcycle. It is contended that petitioner has been implicated, solely on the basis of disclosure statements of the co- accused, which are inadmissible in evidence, in the eyes of law. It is further submitted that, apart from the said disclosure statements, there is no independent material connecting the petitioner with the contraband allegedly recovered from co-accused Satnam. 4. Learned counsel further contends that even assuming that a financial transaction took place between co-accused Sandeep and Gurjit Singh, the same, by itself, does not establish that the amount was transferred at the instance of the petitioner, or that it represented consideration for supply of the recovered contraband. It is argued that alleged nexus between the petitioner and his brother, Gurjit Singh, is a matter to be established by the prosecution by leading cogent evidence during the course of trial. 5. Notice of motion. 6. On advance notice, Mr. Pawan Kumar Garg, learned Deputy Advocate General, Haryana, appears on behalf of the respondent-State and submits that sufficient material has been collected during investigation, giving rise to a strong suspicion that the recovered heroin had been supplied to co-accused Satnam at the instance of the present petitioner. LAVISHA 2026.07.08 18:23 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document PHHC, Chandigarh CRM-M-13788-2026 -3- It is further submitted that, apart from the present case, petitioner is involved in four other cases under the NDPS Act. 7. This Court has considered the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties and has perused the material placed on record. 8. Prima facie, issues raised by the parties are matters which require appreciation of evidence during the course of trial. Unless the prosecution establishes the allegations by leading legally admissible evidence, no conclusive opinion can be formed regarding the petitioner's involvement in the alleged offence. Mere registration of other criminal cases against the petitioner cannot, by itself, lead to an inference that he is also involved in the present case. 9. Therefore, in the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court does not find it necessary to keep the present petition pending any further and, accordingly, deems it appropriate to dispose of the same, with the direction to the petitioner to join the investigation within two weeks from today or as and when called by the investigating officer, and in the eventuality of the arrest, petitioner would be released on anticipatory bail, subject to his furnishing bail bonds to the satisfaction of the Arresting Officer. The petitioner shall also be abide by all the conditions laid down under Section 482(2) of BNSS, 2023 (earlier Section 438(2) Cr.P.C.). 10. Besides, it is directed that petitioner would hand over his passport to the Investigating Agency or to Court concerned, if he LAVISHA 2026.07.08 18:23 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document PHHC, Chandigarh CRM-M-13788-2026 -4- possesses. Otherwise, would submit an affidavit, disclosing the fact that he does not possess any passport. It is also directed that before leaving country any time during trial, petitioner would seek prior permission of the Court. 11. However, it is made clear that the aforesaid concession shall be deemed to be rendered inoperative, in the event, petitioner fails to join the investigation, within the stipulated time, or fails to comply with the terms and conditions, as may be imposed, in accordance with law. 12. With the directions recorded here above, present petition stands disposed of. (SANJAY VASHISTH) 08.07.2026 JUDGE Lavisha Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether reportable Yes/No LAVISHA 2026.07.08 18:23 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document PHHC, Chandigarh