115 In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, at Chandigarh Criminal Misc. No. M-35332 of 2026 Date of Decision: 17.07.2026 Bhupinder Singh alias Bhinda ... Petitioner(s) Versus State of Punjab ... Respondent(s) CORAM: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Surya Partap Singh. Present: Mr. Puneet Bali, Advocate for the petitioner(s) [Through Hybrid Mode]. Mr. Eklavya Darshi, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab, for the respondent. Surya Partap Singh, J. 1. This petition for anticipatory bail is the first petition filed by the petitioner under Section 482 of ‘the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023’. It has been filed with regard to a case arising out of FIR No. 86 dated 03.04.2026, for the commission of offence punishable under Section(s) 21 & 29 of ‘the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985’, Police Station City-1, Abohar District Fazilka, Punjab. 2. Vide order dated 06.07.2026, the petitioner was admitted to interim anticipatory bail, subject to the condition of furnishing bonds to the satisfaction of arresting officer. It was also directed that the petitioner shall join the investigation. 3. The learned State Counsel has filed reply. The same be taken on record. 4. Heard. DEEPAK KUMAR BHARDWAJ 2026.07.18 18:44 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Criminal Misc. No. M-35332 of 2026 2 5. It has been submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that in compliance with order dated 06.07.2026, the petitioner has already joined the investigation, and that nothing has been left to be recovered from the possession of petitioner. In view of above, the learned counsel for the petitioner has requested that the order dated 06.07.2026 be made absolute. 6. The learned State counsel has submitted that although the petitioner has joined investigation, but during the course of investigation he did not cooperate, and that mobile phone was not handed over to the police. However, the learned State counsel has failed to point out that for what purpose the recovery of mobile phone is relevant. As per learned State counsel in view of above custodial interrogation of the petitioner is necessary. 7. The record has been perused carefully. 8. In view of fact-situation of this case and the above mentioned arguments, in my opinion, following are the relevant factors which are supposed to be taken into consideration:- i) that the petitioner has already joined the investigation; ii) that as laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of ‘Vinay Kumar Gupta v. State of Madhya Pradesh’ [Criminal Appeal No.939 of 2026, decided on 16.02.2026] the petitioner cannot be forced to assist the prosecuting agency in effecting recovery of incriminating material, which may harm his own interests or may defeat his right of defence; iii) that as per law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court DEEPAK KUMAR BHARDWAJ 2026.07.18 18:44 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Criminal Misc. No. M-35332 of 2026 3 of India in the case of ‘Sanjay Sharma v. State of Haryana’ [Criminal Appeal No.767 of 2026, decided on 09.02.2026], collection of evidence is the responsibility of the Investigating Officer, and that an accused cannot be compelled to self-incriminate himself; iv) that the learned State counsel has failed to clarify what purpose the recovery of mobile phone shall serve; v) that the quantity of contraband recovered from the possession of co-accused comes within the ambit of ‘noncommercial quantity’, and therefore, rigors of Section-37 of NDPS Act are not attracted in the instant case; vi) that the benefit of interim bail has already been accorded to similarly placed co-accused ‘Reena Rani’; vii) that the only evidence, collected by the investigating agency against the petitioner is the disclosure statement of co-accused of the petitioner, and there is a question mark with regard to credibility & admissibility of above- mentioned statement in evidence, as the same was recorded when the co-accused was in police custody. Since pursuant to above-mentioned disclosure statement recovery of any incriminating material or discovery of fact has not taken place, prima facie the above-mentioned statement appears to be hit by Section-23 of Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam; DEEPAK KUMAR BHARDWAJ 2026.07.18 18:44 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Criminal Misc. No. M-35332 of 2026 4 viii) that the investigation and trial are not likely to be concluded in near future; ix) that nothing has been left to be recovered from the possession of petitioner; vi. that custodial interrogation of the petitioner is not likely to produce a fruitful result; x) that the detention of petitioner in judicial lock-up is not likely to serve any purpose; xi) that there is nothing on record to show that while on anticipatory bail, the petitioner is likely to tamper with the evidence or influence the witnesses; and xii) that there is nothing on record to show that while on anticipatory bail, the petitioner will not participate/cooperate in the investigation. 9. Keeping in view the aforesaid submissions and the fact that the petitioner has already joined the investigation, it is hereby ordered that the petitioner is entitled to anticipatory bail. Hence, the present petition is hereby allowed and the order dated 06.07.2026, whereby the petitioner was accorded the benefit of interim anticipatory bail, is hereby made absolute. (Surya Partap Singh) Judge July 17, 2026 “DK” Whether speaking/reasoned :Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/No DEEPAK KUMAR BHARDWAJ 2026.07.18 18:44 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document