CRM-M-35089-2026 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 207 CRM-M-35089-2026 (O&M) Date of decision: 17.07.2026 Anil Kumar Dhingra @ Annu ...Petitioner Versus State of Haryana ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANISHA BATRA Present:- Mr. Kamal Chaudhary, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Neeraj Poswal, AAG, Haryana. MANISHA BATRA, J. (Oral) 1. The present petition has been filed under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short ‘BNSS’) seeking the concession of anticipatory bail to the petitioner in FIR No.136 dated 23.05.2026, registered under Section 21(b) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short ‘NDPS Act’) at Police Station SGM Nagar, District Faridabad. 2. Brief facts of the case relevant for the purpose of disposal of this petition are that on 23.05.2026, on the basis of a secret information, co-accused Aman Bhatiya was apprehended by a police and recovery of 07 grams of smack was effected from him. Since he could not produce any valid license or permit to keep in his possession the recovered contraband, he was formally arrested at the spot. On interrogation, he disclosed that the recovered MOHAMMAD WASEEM ANSARI 2026.07.17 17:20 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-35089-2026 (O&M) -2- contraband was purchased by him from the present petitioner. On the basis of the same, the petitioner has been nominated in this case as an accused. Apprehending his arrest, the petitioner moved an application for grant of anticipatory bail, which has been dismissed by the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Faridabad, vide order dated 20.06.2026. 3. It is argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that he has been falsely implicated in this case on the basis of the disclosure statement of the above named co-accused, which cannot be considered to be admissible in evidence. There is nothing on record to connect him with the subject crime. He is ready to join the investigation. His custodial interrogation is not required. No recovery is to be effected from him. His custodial interrogation is not required. Therefore, it is urged that the petition deserves to be allowed and the petitioner deserves to be granted concession of anticipatory bail. 4. Status report has been filed by the respondent-State. Learned State counsel has argued that keeping in view the gravity of the allegations levelled against the petitioner as well as his criminal antecedents, he is not entitled to get relief of anticipatory bail. The investigation is at a crucial stage and custodial interrogation of the petitioner is necessary to ascertain the source and chain of supply of narcotic substances and to unearth the larger network involved in illicit trafficking. It is, thus, argued that the petition is liable to be dismissed. 5. This Court has heard the rival submissions. 6. The petitioner is alleged to have supplied the recovered contraband to the abovenamed co-accused. Though the petitioner has been MOHAMMAD WASEEM ANSARI 2026.07.17 17:20 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-35089-2026 (O&M) -3- nominated in this case as accused on the basis of the disclosure statement suffered by the said co-accused but a perusal of the status report reveals that he is a habitual offender and is involved in several other criminal cases including two cases having been registered against him under the provisions of the NDPS Act. The allegations prima facie make out a case for commission of the alleged offence. His custodial interrogation is required for conducting thorough and proper investigation in the matter. In case his custodial interrogation is denied to the investigating agency, the same will leave many glaring loopholes and gaps adversely affecting the investigation. The powers under Section 482 of BNSS are extraordinary and the same are to be exercised sparingly in exceptional circumstances. The judicial discretion conferred upon the Court has to be properly exercised after application of mind as to the nature and gravity of the accusation, possibility of applicant fleeing from justice and other factors to decide whether it is a fit case for grant of anticipatory bail as such grant to some extent interferes in the sphere of investigation of an offence. The Court has also to see that an order of anticipatory bail should not operate as inroad in the normal legal procedure of criminal cases by the trial Court. The custodial interrogation of a suspected person is qualitatively more elicitation oriented than questioning a suspect who is well ensconced with a favourable order under Section 482 of BNSS. The Court must be circumspect while exercising such power for grant of anticipatory bail and it should not be granted as a matter of rule and has to be granted only when the Court is convinced that exceptional circumstances exist to resort to that extra ordinary remedy. In the present case, no such exceptional circumstances warranting MOHAMMAD WASEEM ANSARI 2026.07.17 17:20 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-35089-2026 (O&M) -4- exercise of the powers for grant of anticipatory bail by this Court are existing. As such, this Court is of the considered opinion that the petition does not deserve to be allowed. Accordingly, the same is dismissed. 7. It is made clear that the observations made hereinabove are only for the purpose of deciding the present petition and the same shall not be construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case. 17.07.2026 (MANISHA BATRA) Waseem R. Ansari Waseem R. Ansari Waseem R. Ansari Waseem R. Ansari JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether reportable Yes/No MOHAMMAD WASEEM ANSARI 2026.07.17 17:20 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document