CRM-M-37575-2026 (O&M) -:1:- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH (103) CRM-M-37575-2026 (O&M) Date of Decision:14.07.2026 SAGAR … Petitioner Versus STATE OF HARYANA ... Respondent -.- CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIRINDER AGGARWAL Present:- Mr. Piyush Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Ramesh Kumar Ambavta, DAG, Haryana. -.- VIRINDER AGGARWAL , J . (Oral) 1. The present is the first petition filed under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (corresponding to the erstwhile Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973), seeking the concession of anticipatory bail in case FIR No. 78 dated 10.03.2026, registered under Section 21(c) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, at Police Station City Mandi Dabwali, District Sirsa Dabwali, Haryana (Annexure P-1). 2. Briefly stated, the prosecution case is that on 10.03.2026, ASI Dilawar Singh, while on routine crime-checking and patrolling duty along with the police party near the Bharat Mala Flyover on the Dabwali Kalanwali Road, received a secret information that the petitioner, along with co-accused Jagmeet Singh and Malkeet Singh, was engaged in GAURAV SOROT 2026.07.15 10:05 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-37575-2026 (O&M) -:2:- trafficking narcotic substances and that they would be transporting a substantial quantity of heroin in a Maruti Suzuki car bearing registration No. UP-80DK-2542 from Bathinda towards Village Salam Khera. Treating the information as credible, the Investigating Officer duly complied with the mandatory requirements of Section 42 of the NDPS Act by forwarding the requisite information to his superior officer and thereafter constituted a raiding party. During the ensuing naka, the said vehicle was intercepted. The prosecution alleges that Jagmeet Singh was driving the vehicle, Malkeet Singh was occupying the front passenger seat, while Bhagwan Singh @ Fauiji was seated on the rear seat. Upon search conducted in accordance with the provisions of the NDPS Act, 503 grams of heroin was allegedly recovered from the vehicle. 2.1. During the course of investigation, the aforesaid accused allegedly suffered disclosure statements stating that the recovered contraband had been procured from one Varun, who was subsequently identified as Gurkirpal Singh @ Varun, son of Sukhwinder Singh, resident of Gali No. 5, Ward No. 17, Bharat Nagar, Ferozpur City, Punjab. He was arrested on 09.04.2026 and, during interrogation, allegedly made a disclosure statement to the effect that he, along with co-accused Sukhbir Singh @ Happy, had purchased 550 grams of heroin from the present petitioner for a total consideration of 6,60,000/-, ₹ out of which 1,00,000/- ₹ had allegedly been paid in cash, while the balance amount was agreed to be paid subsequently. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioner has neither been named in the FIR nor attributed any overt act GAURAV SOROT 2026.07.15 10:05 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-37575-2026 (O&M) -:3:- therein. His implication rests solely upon the disclosure statement of co- accused Gurkirpal Singh @ Varun, who himself was not named in the FIR and came to be arrayed as an accused only during the course of investigation. It was submitted that 503 grams of Heroin was allegedly recovered from the co-accused originally named in the FIR, who, in their disclosure statements, alleged that the contraband had been procured from Gurkirpal Singh @ Varun, resident of Ferozepur. Thereafter, upon his arrest, Gurkirpal Singh @ Varun allegedly suffered a disclosure statement to the effect that he, along with co-accused Sukhbir Singh @ Happy, had purchased 550 grams of Heroin from the present petitioner for a consideration of 6,60,000/-, out of which 1,00,000/- was allegedly paid ₹ ₹ in cash, while the balance amount was to be paid subsequently. Learned counsel further submitted that although the aforesaid disclosure statement was recorded in April, 2026, a considerable period has elapsed thereafter, yet the investigating agency has failed to collect any independent, cogent, or corroborative material connecting the petitioner with the alleged transaction or with the co-accused. It is, therefore, argued that the petitioner's custodial interrogation is wholly unwarranted and that he deserves the concession of anticipatory bail. 4. Notice of motion. 5. At the very outset, Mr. Jasjit Singh Rattu, learned Deputy Advocate General, Punjab, accepts notice on behalf of the respondent- State. Opposing the petition, learned State counsel submitted that a substantial commercial quantity of Heroin was recovered from the co- accused and that the petitioner has emerged during investigation as one of GAURAV SOROT 2026.07.15 10:05 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-37575-2026 (O&M) -:4:- the principal suppliers of the contraband. It was contended that the custodial interrogation of the petitioner is indispensable for tracing the source of the contraband, unearthing the entire narcotics supply chain, identifying other members of the syndicate, and effecting further recoveries. It was further argued that grant of anticipatory bail at this stage would seriously impede the ongoing investigation and frustrate efforts to dismantle the larger drug trafficking network. Accordingly, learned State counsel prayed for dismissal of the present petition. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the paper book minutely with their able assistance. 7. The petitioner seeks the extraordinary concession of anticipatory bail in a case registered under the provisions of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, involving recovery of 503 grams of Heroin, which is admittedly a commercial quantity. Though the petitioner is not named in the FIR, his complicity has surfaced during the course of investigation on the basis of the disclosure statement suffered by co-accused Gurkirpal Singh @ Varun, wherein it has been specifically alleged that the recovered contraband had been procured from the present petitioner for valuable consideration. At this stage, the investigation is still in progress and the role attributed to the petitioner is not that of a mere peripheral participant but prima facie that of a supplier in the alleged narcotics trafficking network. 7.2. It is well settled that although a disclosure statement, by itself, may ultimately be tested during trial in accordance with the provisions of the Indian Evidence Act/Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, the Court, while GAURAV SOROT 2026.07.15 10:05 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-37575-2026 (O&M) -:5:- considering a petition for anticipatory bail, is not expected to meticulously evaluate the evidentiary value of the material collected during investigation. The Court is only required to examine whether custodial interrogation appears necessary for the purposes of a fair and effective investigation. 7.3. In the present case, the custodial interrogation of the petitioner appears to be imperative for tracing the source of the contraband, unearthing the entire chain of supply, identifying the persons involved in the narcotics syndicate, ascertaining the money trail, effecting consequential recoveries, and bringing the investigation to its logical conclusion. Grant of the extraordinary relief of anticipatory bail at this stage is likely to impede the ongoing investigation and may seriously prejudice the efforts of the investigating agency in dismantling the alleged organised narcotics network. 7.4. The offences under the NDPS Act involving commercial quantity are grave in nature and have far-reaching ramifications on society. Such offences stand on a different footing from ordinary criminal offences and are required to be viewed with greater circumspection while considering the prayer for pre-arrest bail. The material collected during investigation, at this stage, prima facie discloses the involvement of the petitioner and this Court does not find any exceptional circumstance warranting exercise of the extraordinary discretionary jurisdiction under Section 482 of the BNSS. 7.5. Consequently, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, lest it may prejudice either party during trial, this Court is of the GAURAV SOROT 2026.07.15 10:05 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-37575-2026 (O&M) -:6:- considered opinion that the petitioner has failed to make out a case for grant of anticipatory bail. Accordingly, the present petition, being devoid of merit, is hereby dismissed. 8. In view of the fact that the principal matter stands finally adjudicated, all pending miscellaneous applications, if any, arising out of or ancillary to the present proceedings, shall also stand disposed of accordingly. No separate or further orders are required to be passed in respect thereof. ( VIRINDER AGGARWAL) 14.07.2026 JUDGE Gaurav Sorot Whether reasoned / speaking? Yes / No Whether reportable? Yes / No GAURAV SOROT 2026.07.15 10:05 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document