CRM-M-18885-2026 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-18885-2026 Vikram Kumar ...Petitioner Versus State of Punjab ...Respondent Sr. No. Particulars Details 1 The date when the judgment is reserved 22.07.2026 2 The date when the judgment is pronounced 24.07.2026 3 The date when the judgment is uploaded on the website 24.07.2026 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. Vaibhav Narang, Advocate for the petitioner. Ms. Sakshi Bakshi, Assistant Advocate General, Punjab. *** 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. 217 dated 30.10.2025 registered under Sections 18-C, 25 and 29 of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short, ‘NDPS Act’) at Police Station Chhehratta, District Amritsar. 2. As per the allegations, on 30.10.2025, while performing patrolling duty, the police party had reached near Nathka Wala Bagh and found one truck bearing registration No. BR02-GA-6903 and one car bearing PARVEEN SHARMA 2026.07.24 10:43 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-18885-2026 -2- registration No. PB02-DX-6949 standing there. Two youths were also found talking to each other near those vehicles. One of them was carrying a plastic envelope. On noticing the police officials, they became nervous and tried to flee. They were apprehended. On being asked, they disclosed their names as Prahlad Kumar and Naresh Devgan @ Shanky. Prahlad Kumar further disclosed that he was the driver of the truck, whereas the other, stating that he was the owner of the car standing there, disclosed his name as Naresh Devgan. On conducting the search, five kilograms of opium was recovered from their conscious possession, which was taken into police custody. They were formally arrested. During the course of investigation, accused Prahlad Kumar and Naresh Devgan suffered disclosure statements. In his second disclosure statement, accused Rajiv Kumar informed that he was carrying on the business of sale of opium jointly with the present petitioner. The petitioner was nominated as an accused. Apprehending his arrest, he moved an application for grant of anticipatory bail, which was dismissed by the Court of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Amritsar, vide order dated 02.03.2026. 3. It is argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that he has been falsely implicated in the present case. On his complaint, a case bearing FIR No. 41 dated 31.10.2025 was registered against the SHO of Police Station Chheharta and one Lalit Arora under Sections 7 and 7A of the Prevention of Corruption Act, as the above-named SHO, after registration of FIR No. 217, i.e. the FIR in the present case, had demanded illegal gratification to the tune of ₹30 lakhs from the petitioner and had otherwise threatened to implicate him PARVEEN SHARMA 2026.07.24 10:43 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-18885-2026 -3- in this case. The petitioner had expressed his inability to pay any such bribe money. He had requested Lalit Arora, a close aide of SHO Vinod Kumar Sharma, but in vain. He had then approached the Vigilance Bureau, whereupon the aforesaid FIR was registered. Out of vengeance, he has been nominated as an accused on the basis of the second disclosure statement allegedly suffered by his brother. His antecedents are clean. He is ready to join the investigation. His custodial interrogation is not required. No recovery is to be effected from him. Though the car allegedly used in crime belongs to him, but he was not using the same at the time of the alleged occurrence. It is, therefore, argued that he deserves the concession of anticipatory bail. 4. Per contra, while relying upon the status report, learned State counsel has argued that the allegations against the petitioner are specific and serious in nature. The vehicle admittedly owned by him was used for the purpose of carrying out the activities of sale and purchase of contraband. His active complicity in the crime stands prima facie established. For conducting thorough investigation, his custodial interrogation is must. No exceptional or extraordinary circumstance has been made out in favour of the petitioner for grant of anticipatory bail. It is, therefore, argued 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 have provided the vehicle owned by him to the co-accused for the purpose of carrying contraband. He was named in the disclosure statement of the co-accused. He is also alleged to have PARVEEN SHARMA 2026.07.24 10:43 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-18885-2026 -4- financial transactions relating to the sale and purchase of opium and is also alleged to be aware of the movements of the co-accused for receiving the contraband. It is on his complaint, a case bearing FIR No. 41 was registered at Police Station Chheharta under Sections 7 and 7A of the Prevention of Corruption Act against certain police officials. However, only on that account, he cannot be presumed to be innocent. For the purpose of conducting thorough and proper investigation in the matter, his custodial interrogation is a must. It is also well settled that the Court must be circumspect while exercising 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. As such, I am of the considered opinion that the petition does not deserve to be allowed. Accordingly, the same is dismissed. 7. It is, however, clarified that the 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 24th July, 2026 Parveen Sharma 1. Whether speaking/ reasoned : Yes / No 2. Whether reportable : Yes / No PARVEEN SHARMA 2026.07.24 10:43 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document