CRM-M-36215-2026 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-36215-2026 Sajev Khan ...Petitioner Versus State of Haryana ...Respondent Sr. No. Particulars Details 1 The date when the judgment is reserved 23.07.2026 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. Vikas Bishnoi, 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. 162 dated 11.06.2026 registered under Section 22-C of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short, ‘NDPS Act’) (Section 29 of NDPS Act added later on) at Police Station Nissing, District Karnal. PARVEEN SHARMA 2026.07.24 17:46 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-36215-2026 -2- 2. The aforementioned FIR was registered on the allegations that on 11.06.2026, a police party headed by Sub-Inspector Satish Kumar was performing duty in the area of Village Nissing, when a secret information was received to the effect that one Rahul Sharma was operating a chemist shop in Village Gondar without having any licence or permit for the same and was involved in the business of sale of intoxicating tablets and, at that very point of time also, was doing so. Believing the secret information to be true, a raiding party was formed. After completing all the legal formalities and after joining the Drug Inspector, Karnal, the police party reached the spot and found Rahul Sharma sitting in his shop. He could not produce any licence for running the chemist shop. On conducting search, three boxes containing 1785 tablets of Alprazolam weighing 214.20 grams were found kept therein, for which he could not produce any permit. The recovered tablets were taken into custody. He was apprehended and was formally arrested. 3. As per the further allegations, on interrogation, Rahul Sharma suffered disclosure statement to the effect that he had purchased the recovered tablets from Vikas Kumar, who was nominated as an accused, joined the investigation, and was formally arrested. He suffered disclosure statement on the basis of which, accused Shiv Kumar was nominated. Shiv Kumar was arrested on 15.06.2026 and suffered a disclosure statement disclosing that he had purchased five boxes of Alprazolam tablets from the present petitioner at the rate of ₹1,850/- per box on 08.06.2026 upon receipt of an order for such tablets from accused Vikas Kumar and had supplied the same to the latter. The PARVEEN SHARMA 2026.07.24 17:46 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-36215-2026 -3- present petitioner was accordingly nominated as an accused. Apprehending his arrest, the petitioner moved an application for grant of anticipatory bail, which was dismissed by the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Karnal, vide order dated 23.06.2026. 4. It is argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that he has been falsely implicated in the present case on the basis of the disclosure statement of the co-accused, which cannot be considered to be legally admissible in evidence. In fact, he is only a small employee of accused Shiv Kumar. He had nothing to do with the commission of the subject offences. He is ready to join the investigation. His custodial interrogation is not required. His antecedents are clean. Therefore, it is argued that he deserves to be extended the benefit of anticipatory bail. 5. Per contra, learned State counsel, while relying upon the status report, has argued that the petitioner is a vital link in the drug trafficking network run along with the co-accused. His custodial interrogation is indispensable for effecting recovery of the proceeds of crime, identifying the original source of the recovered contraband, tracing the entire illegal supply chain, and apprehending the remaining members of the syndicate. It is argued that the co-accused Shiv Kumar used to make payments in small sums to the petitioner through online transfers and used to purchase the intoxicating tablets exclusively from the petitioner. The bank account statement of co- accused Shiv Kumar has been placed on record, which affirms this fact. Moreover, the call detail records of the mobile phones of the petitioner and PARVEEN SHARMA 2026.07.24 17:46 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-36215-2026 -4- co-accused Shiv Kumar have also been collected, which show that several calls were exchanged between them during the period from 23.03.2026 to 09.06.2026. It is, therefore, argued that the petitioner does not deserve the concession of anticipatory bail. 6. This Court has heard the rival submissions made by learned counsel for the parties at considerable length. 7. The petitioner is alleged to have been supplying intoxicating tablets to co-accused Shiv Kumar. The allegations prima facie establishes his complicity with the said accused Shiv Kumar in the form of the call detail records of both of them as well as the money transactions having taken place between them. The petitioner has claimed that he was an employee of Shiv Kumar, but the disclosure statements of accused Shiv Kumar do not show so. The allegations against the petitioner are specific and serious in nature. For the purpose of conducting thorough investigation in the matter, custodial interrogation of the petitioner is must. 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 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. Keeping in view the gravity of allegations as levelled against the petitioner and the attendant facts and PARVEEN SHARMA 2026.07.24 17:46 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-36215-2026 -5- circumstances of the case, this Court is of the considered opinion that the petition does not deserve to be allowed. Accordingly, the same is dismissed. 8. It is, however, clarified that observations made hereinabove shall not be construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case. 9. 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 17:46 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document