CRM-M-37340-2026 (O&M) -:1:- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH (208) CRM-M-37340-2026 (O&M) Date of Decision:21.07.2026 SAMAL … Petitioner Versus STATE OF PUNJAB ... Respondent -.- CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIRINDER AGGARWAL Present:- Mr. Hardeep Singh, 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. 460 dated 07.11.2025, initially registered under Section 21-B of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, with Section 29 of the NDPS Act having subsequently been added vide DDR No. 32 dated 10.11.2025, at Police Station City Faridkot, District Faridkot. 2. Briefly stated, the prosecution case is that on 07.11.2025, a police party headed by ASI Hakam Singh, accompanied by other police officials, was on routine patrolling duty near Ferozepur Road, Faridkot, in an official vehicle. Upon reaching the turning leading to Dhara Singh GAURAV SOROT 2026.07.22 17:02 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-37340-2026 (O&M) -:2:- Colony, the police party noticed four young persons standing near a motorcycle bearing registration No. PB-05AQ-5125. On noticing the police, one of the suspects allegedly picked up a polythene bag lying on the motorcycle seat and threw it away. Entertaining suspicion, the police apprehended all four suspects, who disclosed their identities as Jashanpreet Singh, Ajay @ Rahul, Sahil, and Karan Singh @ Tuli. 2.1. The Investigating Officer introduced himself and apprised the accused of their statutory right under Section 50 of the NDPS Act to be searched in the presence of a Gazetted Officer or a Magistrate. The accused, after understanding their legal rights, voluntarily declined the offer and furnished their written consent authorising the Investigating Officer to conduct the search. Efforts were made to associate independent witnesses; however, no person agreed to join the proceedings owing to personal constraints. 2.2. Upon conducting the search of the discarded polythene bag in accordance with the prescribed procedure, a brown-coloured substance was recovered. The substance, after being tested with the prescribed testing kit (A-1 and A-2 solutions), prima facie tested positive for heroin. Its weight, upon measurement with a digital weighing scale, was found to be 200 grams. The recovered contraband was converted into a sealed parcel in accordance with law and taken into possession along with the aforesaid motorcycle vide a recovery memo. Nothing incriminating was recovered during the personal search of the accused. The entire search and seizure proceedings were videographed through the e-Sakshya App. GAURAV SOROT 2026.07.22 17:02 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-37340-2026 (O&M) -:3:- Consequently, a ruqa was prepared, leading to the registration of the present FIR under Section 21-B of the NDPS Act, and the investigation was set into motion. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner was not named in the FIR and came to be nominated subsequently solely on the basis of the disclosure statement allegedly made by co-accused Ajay @ Rahul, wherein it was stated that the contraband had been procured from the petitioner. On the strength of the said disclosure statement, Section 29 of the NDPS Act was added vide DDR No. 32 dated 10.11.2025. It is further submitted that the petitioner had initially approached the learned Special Judge, Faridkot, by filing an application seeking anticipatory bail under Section 482 of the BNSS. The learned Special Judge, vide order dated 12.03.2026, granted interim protection to the petitioner with a direction to join the investigation. However, the said application was ultimately dismissed vide order dated 23.03.2026, primarily on the ground that the petitioner had failed to join the investigation despite the interim protection granted to him. 3.1. Learned counsel, however, submits that the petitioner now unequivocally undertakes to join the investigation forthwith, to cooperate fully with the Investigating Agency, and to abide by every condition that may be imposed by this Court. It is, therefore, prayed that the petitioner be granted the concession of anticipatory bail. 4. Learned State counsel has filed a reply by way of an affidavit sworn by Tarlochan Singh, PPS, Deputy Superintendent of Police, Sub- GAURAV SOROT 2026.07.22 17:02 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-37340-2026 (O&M) -:4:- Division Faridkot, District Faridkot, on behalf of the respondent-State of Punjab. He has vehemently opposed the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail, contending that, having regard to the nature, gravity and seriousness of the allegations, the quantity of contraband recovered, and the role attributed to the petitioner during the course of investigation, the petitioner does not deserve the extraordinary discretionary relief of pre-arrest bail. It is further submitted that custodial interrogation of the petitioner is essential for carrying the investigation to its logical conclusion and for unearthing the entire chain of illicit trafficking. Accordingly, it is 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 bestowed thoughtful consideration to the rival submissions and upon a prima facie appraisal of the material placed on record, this Court finds no ground to invoke its extraordinary discretionary jurisdiction for the grant of anticipatory bail. It is an admitted position that the petitioner had earlier been granted the concession of interim anticipatory bail by the learned Special Court despite the allegations involving the recovery of 200 grams of heroin, which is a quantity bordering on the commercial quantity. However, notwithstanding the protection so granted and the specific directions issued by the learned Special Court, the petitioner failed to join the investigation. Consequently, GAURAV SOROT 2026.07.22 17:02 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-37340-2026 (O&M) -:5:- the interim protection was vacated and his petition for anticipatory bail came to be dismissed. 6.1. It is also the specific case of the prosecution that the 200 grams of heroin recovered from the co-accused was allegedly supplied by the present petitioner, and that the co-accused, in their disclosure statements recorded during the course of investigation, categorically disclosed that they had purchased the recovered contraband from the petitioner. Thus, the role attributed to the petitioner is not merely peripheral but that of the alleged source supplier in the illicit trafficking of narcotic substances. The investigation, therefore, necessarily requires a thorough examination of his role with a view to unearthing the entire supply chain, identifying other persons involved in the narcotics network, and tracing the source as well as the destination of the contraband. 6.2. Significantly, the petitioner has failed to furnish any plausible or satisfactory explanation for his deliberate non-compliance with the directions of the learned Special Court or for his failure to join the investigation despite having been afforded the protection of interim anticipatory bail. Such conduct demonstrates a conscious disregard for the judicial process and disentitles him from claiming the equitable and discretionary relief of pre-arrest bail. 6.3. The prosecution has specifically asserted that the custodial interrogation of the petitioner is indispensable for carrying the investigation to its logical conclusion, recovering further incriminating material, identifying other members of the alleged narcotics syndicate, and GAURAV SOROT 2026.07.22 17:02 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-37340-2026 (O&M) -:6:- unearthing the complete modus operandi adopted in the procurement and distribution of the contraband. The petitioner has admittedly been evading arrest for a considerable period and, in the facts and circumstances of the present case, custodial interrogation cannot be substituted by mere joining of investigation. 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 by pre-arrest bail, the petitioner may influence witnesses, tamper with the prosecution evidence, or otherwise obstruct the course of justice. 6.4. It is trite that anticipatory bail is an extraordinary and equitable relief, to be granted only in exceptional circumstances where the Court is satisfied that the applicant has made out a compelling case for the exercise of such discretion. The said relief cannot be permitted to become a shield against legitimate investigation, particularly where serious allegations under the NDPS Act are involved and custodial interrogation is shown to be necessary. 6.5. In view of the nature and gravity of the allegations, the specific role attributed to the petitioner as the alleged supplier of the recovered heroin, his earlier failure to comply with the directions of the Court despite grant of interim protection, his continued evasion of arrest, and the necessity of custodial interrogation for unearthing the larger conspiracy and the entire narcotics network, this Court is of the considered opinion that no case is made out for extending the concession of anticipatory bail. Accordingly, without expressing any opinion on the GAURAV SOROT 2026.07.22 17:02 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-37340-2026 (O&M) -:7:- merits of the case, lest it prejudice either side during the course of 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