CRM-M-35071-2026 ::1:: IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH (217) CRM-M-35071-2026 Date of decision: 21.07.2026 Gurcharan Singh @ Mota …... Petitioner V/S State Of Punjab ...Respondent CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE JASJIT SINGH BEDI Present: Mr. Ruhani Chadha, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. M.S. Toor, AAG Punjab. **** JASJIT SINGH BEDI, J. (Oral) The prayer in the present petition under Section 482 of BNSS, 2023 is for the grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner in case FIR No.121 dated 03.06.2026 under Sections 105 of BNS, 2023 registered at Police Station Kot Ise Khan, District Moga. 2. The present FIR came to be registered at the instance of Manpreet Singh ASI and reads as under:- “To The Station House Officer, Police Station Kot Ise Khan, "Jai Hind". Today. I. ASI Manpreet Singh, along with Head Constable Satwinder Singh No. 54/Moga, Head Constable Lakhvir Singh No. 815/Moga and PHG Ramkaran Singh No. 11282, carrying the laptop and printer, departed in Government vehicle No. PB- 29-X-6639, which was being driven by Head Constable Satwinder Singh No. 54/Moga, for patrolling, checking and search of suspicious persons towards the police post area. When the police party was present at Bus Stand Daulewala, a secret informer informed ASI, that the KUSUM 2026.07.23 10:55 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document PHHC Chandigarh CRM-M-35071-2026 ::2:: dead body of a person was lying in the street near the flour mill at Daulewala, and it appeared that he had died due to excessive consumption of narcotic drugs. Upon this information, I, ASI, along with the accompanying police officials reached near the flour mill at Daulewala, where the dead body of a person was lying in the street and a large number of people had gathered nearby. At the spot, Joginder Pal Singh son of Darshan Singh, resident of Village Daulewala, District Moga, met me and stated that the deceased was Balwinder Singh son of Darshan Singh, resident of Village Daulewala, presently residing in Marasian Wali Gali near Akalsar Gurudwara Sahib, Moga, who was his younger brother. He was addicted to consuming heroin/injecting heroin. Today, he administered an incorrect/excessive heroin injection to himself, due to which he died. I, along with the accompanying police officials, shifted the dead body of deceased Balwinder Singh son of Darshan Singh, resident of Village Daulewala, presently residing at Marasian Wali Gali near Akalsar Gurdwara Sahib, Moga, to the mortuary of Civil Hospital, Moga. Thereafter, I, along with the accompanying police officials, continued making inquiries regarding the persons/women selling heroin. During inquiry, it came to light that Lovepreet son of Keema son of Malook Singh and Gurcharan Singh son of Harnam Singh, residents of Village Noorpur Hakima, jointly sell narcotic drugs and also come to Village Daulewala for selling narcotic drugs. Further, Chhinder Singh alias Chhinda son of Balvir Singh and Parminder Kaur alias Gunni wife of Nachhattar Singh, residents of village Daulewala, are also jointly engaged in the business of selling heroin. Several criminal cases regarding sale of narcotic drugs have already been registered against them. Besides them, 5-6 unidentified persons/women are also engaged in the KUSUM 2026.07.23 10:55 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document PHHC Chandigarh CRM-M-35071-2026 ::3:: business of selling narcotic drugs. The aforesaid persons/women supplied an excessive quantity of heroin to deceased Balwinder Singh son of Darshan Singh, resident of Village Daulewala, presently residing at Marasian Wali Gali near Akalsar Gurdwara Sahib, Moga, due to which Balwinder Singh died. As this information is true, credible and reliable, it discloses the commission of an offence punishable under Section 105 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS). Accordingly, a ruqa is being sent against: 1. Lovepreet son of Keema son of Malook Singh, resident of Village Noorpur Hakima, Police Station Dharamkot; 2. Gurcharan Singh son of Harnam Singh, resident of Village Noorpur Hakima, Police Station Dharamkot; 3. Chhinder Singh alias Chhinda son of Balvir Singh, resident of village Dallewala, District Moga; and 4. Parminder Kaur alias Gunni wife of Nachhattar Singh, resident of village Dallewala, District Moga, for registration of a criminal case under Section 105 BNS. This ruqa is being sent through PHG Ramkaran Singh No. 11282 for registration of the FIR. After registration of the case, the FIR number may be communicated. The superior officers may be informed and special reports may be issued. I, ASI, along with the accompanying police officials, am proceeding to conduct a raid at the addresses of the aforesaid accused persons. Sd/- Manpreet Singh, ASI Police Station Kot Ise Khan, Dated: 03.06.2026” 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case only on the basis of suspicion. The name of the petitioner has been mentioned in the FIR as he is not having cordial relations with the family of the deceased. The petitioner has been nominated as an accused only on the presumption that he supplied KUSUM 2026.07.23 10:55 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document PHHC Chandigarh CRM-M-35071-2026 ::4:: contraband to the deceased. No member of the family of the deceased has reported the murder to the Police qua the involvement of the petitioner. In fact, the deceased namely Balwinder Singh was habitual of consuming drugs and died on account of an overdose. As the petitioner is ready and willing to join investigation, he be granted the concession of anticipatory bail. 4. The learned counsel for the State, on the other hand, has filed a reply dated 20.07.2026 by way of an affidavit of Sukhwinder Singh, PPS, Superintendent of Police, Dharamkot, District Moga, which is taken on record. While referring to the said reply, he contends that after the death of Balwinder Singh, an inquiry was conducted, wherein it was found that multiple persons including the present petitioner were involved in selling drugs in and around the village. He is a convict in five cases, an undertrial in seven, and is under investigation in two other cases under the NDPS Act. His custodial interrogation is certainly necessary to ascertain the role played by him. He, thus, prays that the present petition be dismissed. 5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties. 6. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of ‘Sumitha Pradeep Vs. Arun Kumar C.K. & Anr. 2022(4) RCR (Criminal) 977’, has held that merely because custodial interrogation was not required by itself could not be a ground to grant anticipatory bail. The first and the foremost thing the Court hearing the anticipatory bail application is to consider is the prima facie case against the accused. The relevant extract of the judgment is reproduced hereinbelow:- KUSUM 2026.07.23 10:55 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document PHHC Chandigarh CRM-M-35071-2026 ::5:: “It may be true, as pointed out by learned counsel appearing for Respondent No.1, that charge-sheet has already been filed. It will be unfair to presume on our part that the Investigating Officer does not require Respondent No.1 for custodial interrogation for the purpose of further investigation. Be that as it may, even assuming it a case where Respondent No.1 is not required for custodial interrogation, we are satisfied that the High Court ought not to have granted discretionary relief of anticipatory bail. We are dealing with a matter wherein the original complainant (appellant herein) has come before this Court praying that the anticipatory bail granted by the High Court to the accused should be cancelled. To put it in other words, the complainant says that the High Court wrongly exercised its discretion while granting anticipatory bail to the accused in a very serious crime like POCSO and, therefore, the order passed by the High Court granting anticipatory bail to the accused should be quashed and set aside. In many anticipatory bail matters, we have noticed one common argument being canvassed that no custodial interrogation is required and, therefore, anticipatory bail may be granted. There appears to be a serious misconception of law that if no case for custodial interrogation is made out by the prosecution, then that alone would be a good ground to grant anticipatory bail. Custodial interrogation can be one of the relevant aspects to be considered along with other grounds while deciding an application seeking anticipatory bail. There may be many cases in which the custodial interrogation of the accused may not be required, but that does not mean that the prima facie case against the accused should be ignored or overlooked and he should be granted anticipatory bail. The first and foremost KUSUM 2026.07.23 10:55 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document PHHC Chandigarh CRM-M-35071-2026 ::6:: thing that the court hearing an anticipatory bail application should consider is the prima facie case put up against the accused. Thereafter, the nature of the offence should be looked into along with the severity of the punishment. Custodial interrogation can be one of the grounds to decline custodial interrogation. However, even if custodial interrogation is not required or necessitated, by itself, cannot be a ground to grant anticipatory bail.” 7. As per the FIR, Balwinder Singh/deceased died on account of a drug overdose. The inquiry conducted by the Police revealed that the petitioner along with other accused supplied drugs in and around the area. 8. The petitioner is also a habitual offender with multiple other cases registered against him, the details of which are as under:- Sr. No. FIR No./dated Police Station Offences Current Stage 1. 123/2002 Dharamkot 15 NDPS Act Convicted 2. 64/2003 Dharamkot 15 NDPS Act Convicted 3. 143/2017 Jalalabad 21 NDPS Act Convicted 4. 132/2019 Dharamkot 21 NDPS Act Convicted 5. 228/2019 Dharamkot 22 NDPS Act Convicted 6. 119/2020 Dharamkot 21/22/29 NDPS Act Under Trial 7. 44/2021 Dharamkot 21 NDPS Act Under Trial 8. 98/2021 Dharamkot 21 NDPS Act Under Trial 9. 231/2021 Dharamkot 21/29 NDPS Act Under Trial 10. 166/2024 Dharamkot 21-B/29 NDPS Act Under Trial 11. 38/2025 Dharamkot 22/29 NDPS Act Under Trial 12. 183/2025 Dharamkot 21/29 NDPS Act Under Investigation 13. 190/2025 Dharamkot 21/22 NDPS Act Under Trial 14. 52/2017 Dharamkot 21 NDPS Act Under Investigation 15. 129/2024 Dharamkot 137(2), 96 BNSS Under Trial 16. 95/2015 Dharamkot 61/1/14 Ex. Act KUSUM 2026.07.23 10:55 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document PHHC Chandigarh CRM-M-35071-2026 ::7:: 9. Keeping in view the allegations levelled against the petitioner, as also his criminal antecedents, his custodial interrogation is certainly required to take the investigation to its logical conclusion. 10. In view the above discussion, I find no merit in the present petition and the same stands dismissed. 11. However, it is made clear that the observations made in this order are only for the purpose of deciding this bail application and the Trial Court is free to adjudicate upon the matter on the basis of the evidence lead before it uninfluenced by any such observations made. 12. The pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of accordingly. July 21, 2026 ( JASJIT SINGH BEDI) kusum JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/No KUSUM 2026.07.23 10:55 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document PHHC Chandigarh