CRM-M-24175-2026 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 216 CRM-M-24175-2026 PEERAN DITTA ALIAS KUNJJA ....PETITIONER V/s STATE OF HARYANA ....RESPONDENT Date of decision: 09.07.2026 Date of uploading:09.07.2026 CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL Present: Ms. Dilpreet Kaur, Advocate and Mr. Karandeep Singh Dargan, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Gurmeet Singh, AAG, Haryana. ***** SUMEET GOEL , J. 1. On 30.04.2026, the following order was passed:- “Learned counsel for the petitioner, at the outset, submits that on account of inadvertence, the State of Punjab has been impleaded as party respondent , whereas, the State of Haryana is the correct respondent. He has made an oral request, in this behalf. In the interest of justice, oral motion made by learned counsel for the petitioner is granted and the Registry is directed to amend the Memo of Parties to read the respondent as “State of Haryana” instead of “State of Punjab”. Apprehending his arrest in FIR No.19 dated 13.01.2026, registered for offences punishable under Section 21B of the NDPS Act, 1985 (Sections 61 & 85 of the NDPS Act added lateron), at Police Station Rania, District Sirsa; the petitioner has preferred this petition under Section 482 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 seeking pre-arrest bail. Inter alia, contends that the petitioner is sought to be implicated into the FIR in question solely on the basis of a disclosure statement made by coaccused from whom the contraband in question has been allegedly recovered & the petitioner is willing to join investigation and cooperate therein. JATIN 2026.07.09 17:42 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-24175-2026 2 In order to buttress his arguments, learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the dicta of the judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in ‘Vijay Singh versus The State of Haryana’ bearing Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No(s).1266/2023, ‘State by (NCB) Bengaluru vs. Pallulabid Ahmad Arimutta & Anr’ 2022(1) RCR (Criminal) 762, ‘Tofan Singh vs. State of Tamil Nadu, AIR 2020 Supreme Court 5592, ‘Smt. Najmunisha, Abdul Hamid Chandmiya @ Ladoo Bapu vs. State of Gujrat, Narcotics Control Bureau’ 2024 INSC 290 and ‘Jugraj Singh Vs. State of Haryana bearing Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No.9190/2025. Notice of motion. On the strength of advance notice; Ms. Mahima Yashpal Singla, Senior DAG Haryana causes appearance and accepts notice on behalf of the respondent – State of Haryana. Put up on 26.05.2026. The petitioner is directed to appear before the Investigating Officer on 05.05.2026 at 11:00 A.M. in concerned Police Station and join investigation. In the event of arrest, the petitioner shall be released on interim bail subject to his furnishing personal/surety bond(s) to the satisfaction of the Arresting Officer/Investigating Officer. As and when further called by Investigating Officer, the petitioner shall join the investigation. He shall abide by the condition(s) enumerated under Section 482(2) of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.” 2. Learned State counsel (on instructions) has submitted that the petitioner has joined investigation and he is not required for further custodial interrogation. 3. In view of the stance of the State, especially the factum of the petitioner having joined investigation and he being arrayed as an accused on the basis of disclosure statement, this Court is inclined to confirm the order dated 30.04.2026, in light of the dicta of the judgment passed by this Court in CRM-M-54032-2024 ‘Ashu Vs. State of Punjab’ and recent judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court passed in ‘Jugraj Singh Vs. State of Punjab’ bearing Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No.9190/2025. JATIN 2026.07.09 17:42 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-24175-2026 3 4. Accordingly, the petition is allowed and the order dated 30.04.2026, granting anticipatory bail to the petitioner is hereby made absolute, subject to the conditions as enumerated under Section 482(2) of BNSS. 5. This order should not be treated as “blanket” order. It will not be read granting petitioner indefinite protection from arrest. It shall be confined to the FIR mentioned ibid and will not operate in respect of any other incident that involves commission of an offence. 6. Liberty is reserved in favour of State/complainant to move for cancellation/recall of this order in case the petitioner violates any condition stipulated under Section 482(2) of BNSS or upon showing any other sufficient cause. 7. Needless to say that anything observed herein above shall not be construed to be an opinion on the merits of the case. 8. Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of. (SUMEET GOEL) JUDGE 09.07.2026 jatin Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No Whether reportable: Yes/No JATIN 2026.07.09 17:42 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document