CRM-M-37456-2026 (O&M) -:1:- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH (209) CRM-M-37456-2026 (O&M) Date of Decision:21.07.2026 GURMIT SINGH @ BUDHI … Petitioner Versus STATE OF PUNJAB ... Respondent -.- CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIRINDER AGGARWAL Present:- Mr. Rahul Sharma, Advocate for Mr. B.S. Bhalla, Advocate for the petitioner. Ms. Navreet Kaur, Asstt. AG, Punjab. -.- VIRINDER AGGARWAL , J . (Oral) 1. The present petition has been instituted under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (corresponding to Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973) seeking the extraordinary relief of anticipatory bail in connection with FIR No. 25 dated 09.04.2026, initially registered under Section 15 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, with Section 29 of the NDPS Act having been added subsequently, at Police Station Fatehgarh Panjtoor, District Moga (Annexure P-1). 2. The prosecution case, in brief, is that on 09.04.2026, acting upon secret information, the police apprehended co-accused Gurjit Singh, son of Sarabjit Singh, resident of Village Bahadarwala, within the jurisdiction of Police Station Fatehgarh Panjtoor. Upon search, he was GAURAV SOROT 2026.07.22 17:02 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-37456-2026 (O&M) -:2:- allegedly found in conscious possession of three plastic bags containing poppy husk, each weighing 10 kilograms, aggregating 30 kilograms. The recovered contraband was seized in accordance with law, whereupon the present FIR was registered. During the course of investigation, the present petitioner came to be nominated as an accused under Section 29 of the NDPS Act. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioner was not named in the FIR and has been falsely implicated solely on the basis of the disclosure statement allegedly made by the co-accused, from whose possession 30 kilograms of poppy husk, which is below the commercial quantity, was recovered. It is submitted that there is no independent incriminating material connecting the petitioner with the alleged offence and that his nomination rests exclusively upon the disclosure statement of the co-accused, which, by itself, does not constitute substantive evidence. Learned counsel further submitted that the implication of the petitioner is actuated by ulterior motives. According to him, the co-accused had borrowed a sum of 10,000/- ₹ from the petitioner and, when repeatedly called upon to repay the amount, the petitioner approached the village respectables for intervention. Bearing a grudge on account of such demand, the co-accused falsely named the petitioner in his disclosure statement to wreak vengeance. It is, therefore, contended that the petitioner has been maliciously implicated for extraneous considerations, his custodial interrogation is wholly unwarranted, and he deserves the protection of anticipatory bail. GAURAV SOROT 2026.07.22 17:02 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-37456-2026 (O&M) -:3:- 4. Learned State counsel has placed on record a short reply by way of an affidavit sworn by Sukhwinder Singh, PPS, Deputy Superintendent of Police, Dharamkot, District Moga, on behalf of the respondent-State of Punjab. He has vehemently opposed the present petition, contending that, having regard to the nature, gravity and seriousness of the allegations, as well as the manner in which the offence is alleged to have been committed, the petitioner does not deserve the extraordinary discretionary relief of anticipatory bail. It is, accordingly, prayed that the present petition, being devoid of merit, be dismissed. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the respective parties at considerable length and have carefully examined the paper book as well as the material placed on record with their able assistance. 6. Having given thoughtful consideration to the rival submissions and upon a prima facie appraisal of the material available on record, this Court finds no ground to extend the extraordinary discretionary relief of anticipatory bail to the petitioner. The recovery in the present case pertains to 30 kilograms of poppy husk, and, as per the prosecution, the said contraband was allegedly procured from the present petitioner, whose complicity has surfaced during the course of investigation on the basis of the disclosure statement of the co-accused. 6.1. The status report further reveals that the petitioner is a habitual offender and has been involved in six other criminal cases. More significantly, he stands convicted in the following cases:- • FIR No. 31 dated 11.04.2002, registered at Police Station Fatehgarh Panjtoor under Section 15 of the NDPS Act; GAURAV SOROT 2026.07.22 17:02 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-37456-2026 (O&M) -:4:- • FIR No. 47 dated 23.10.2001, registered at Police Station Kot Ise Khan under Section 15 of the NDPS Act; and • FIR No. 236 dated 31.08.2003, registered at Police Station City Faridkot under Sections 353, 186, 325 and 332 of the IPC. 6.2. The criminal antecedents of the petitioner, particularly his previous convictions under the provisions of the NDPS Act, cannot be brushed aside while exercising the discretionary jurisdiction under Section 438 Cr.P.C. (now Section 482 of the BNSS). The antecedents of an accused constitute a relevant and significant consideration while adjudicating a prayer for anticipatory bail. 6.3. Furthermore, the investigation is still at a crucial stage and the prosecution has specifically asserted that the custodial interrogation of the petitioner is indispensable for unearthing the source and chain of supply of the contraband, identifying other persons involved in the alleged narcotics network, and taking the investigation to its logical conclusion. Grant of anticipatory bail at this stage is likely to impede a fair and effective investigation. There also exists a reasonable apprehension that, if protected from arrest, the petitioner may influence witnesses, tamper with the prosecution evidence or evade the course of justice. 6.4. In view of the nature and gravity of the allegations, the petitioner's criminal antecedents, his previous convictions, and the necessity of custodial interrogation, this Court is of the considered opinion that the petitioner has failed to make out a case for grant of the extraordinary relief of anticipatory bail. Consequently, without expressing GAURAV SOROT 2026.07.22 17:02 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-37456-2026 (O&M) -:5:- any opinion on the merits of the case, lest it prejudice either side during trial, the present petition, being devoid of merit, is hereby dismissed. 7. By virtue of the final determination of the main cause, all pending interlocutory and ancillary applications stand automatically disposed of. The final adjudication of the core controversy has effectively extinguished the substratum of these pending applications, rendering them infructuous and precluding the need for separate judicial intervention or formal orders. ( VIRINDER AGGARWAL) 21.07.2026 JUDGE Gaurav Sorot Whether reasoned / speaking? Yes / No Whether reportable? Yes / No GAURAV SOROT 2026.07.22 17:02 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document