CRM-M-35683-2026 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-35683-2026 Saral Kumar @ Shanky ...Petitioner Versus State of Haryana ...Respondent Sr. No. Particulars Details 1 The date when the judgment is reserved 21.07.2026 2 The date when the judgment is pronounced 22.07.2026 3 The date when the judgment is uploaded on the website 22.07.2026 4 Whether only operative part of the judgment is pronounced or full judgment is pronounced Full 5 The delay, if any, of the pronouncement of full judgment, and reasons thereof Not applicable CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANISHA BATRA Present: Mr. Davneet Sangwan, Advocate with Mr. Ankush Sihag, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Neeraj Poswal, Assistant Advocate General, Haryana. *** MANISHA BATRA, J :- The present petition has been filed under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short ‘BNSS’) by the petitioner seeking grant of anticipatory bail in case bearing FIR No. 556 dated 10.06.2024 registered under Sections 21(b) of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short, ‘NDPS Act’) (Section 29 of NDPS Act added later on) at Police Station City Yamuna Nagar. PARVEEN SHARMA 2026.07.22 16:29 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-35683-2026 -2- 2. As per the allegations, on 10.06.2024, on the basis of suspicion, accused Rohit @ Goldy was apprehended. On conducting the search of his motorcycle, 10.86 grams of heroin kept in a plastic bag was allegedly recovered from his conscious possession, which was taken into police possession. The said accused was formally arrested. During interrogation, he suffered a disclosure statement, on the basis of which the present petitioner was nominated as an accused. Apprehending his arrest, the petitioner moved an application for grant of pre-arrest bail before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Yamuna Nagar, which was dismissed vide order dated 15.06.2026. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case only on the basis of the disclosure statement of the co-accused, which is not legally admissible in evidence. It is further submitted that the recovery effected from the co-accused is of non-commercial quantity of contraband and therefore, the rigours of Section 37 of the NDPS Act are not attracted. The petitioner is ready and willing to join the investigation. No recovery is to be effected from him. It is, therefore, argued that the present petition deserves to be allowed. 4. Per contra, learned State counsel, while relying upon the status report, has argued that the allegations against the petitioner are serious in nature. It is submitted that the petitioner used to supply contraband to co- accused Rohit @ Goldy. The recovered contraband had allegedly been PARVEEN SHARMA 2026.07.22 16:29 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-35683-2026 -3- supplied by the petitioner to the co-accused for a sum of ₹17,000/-, out of which ₹7,000/- had already been paid in cash through an employee of the petitioner. The antecedents of the petitioner are not clean. He is stated to be involved in six other criminal cases and has already been convicted in two of them. One of the cases registered against him is also under the provisions of the NDPS Act. There are chances of his absconding or committing similar offences, if extended benefit of bail. No exceptional circumstance exists for extending the benefit of anticipatory bail to the petitioner. Therefore, it is stressed that the petition does not deserve to be allowed. 5. This Court has heard the rival submissions made by learned counsel for the parties at considerable length. 6. The petitioner is alleged to be the supplier of the contraband recovered from the co-accused. Though he was not named in the FIR, he has been nominated as an accused on the basis of the disclosure statement made by the co-accused during investigation. The antecedents of the petitioner are also not clean. He is stated to be involved in another case under the provisions of the NDPS Act besides five other criminal cases. The allegations against the petitioner are serious in nature. For conducting a deeper probe and for eliciting information regarding the source and supply chain of the contraband, custodial interrogation of the petitioner is required. The powers of anticipatory bail are extra ordinary and the same are to be exercised sparingly and in exceptional circumstances. The Court must be circumspect while exercising PARVEEN SHARMA 2026.07.22 16:29 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-35683-2026 -4- 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 exercise of the powers for grant of anticipatory bail by this Court are existing. Taking into consideration the above discussed facts, this Court is of the considered opinion that the petition does not deserve to be allowed. Accordingly, the same is dismissed. 7. It is, however, clarified that observations made hereinabove shall not be construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case. 8. Since the main petition has been dismissed, pending application, if any, is rendered infructuous. [MANISHA BATRA] JUDGE 22nd July, 2026 Parveen Sharma 1. Whether speaking/ reasoned : Yes / No 2. Whether reportable : Yes / No PARVEEN SHARMA 2026.07.22 16:29 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document