IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH (209) CRM-M-33963-2026 Decided on : 27.07.2026 Uploaded on : 27.07.2026 Ravi Kumar ……Petitioner(s) Versus State of Haryana ……Respondent(s) CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL Present: Mr. Vikas Bishnoi, Advocate, for the petitioner (s). Ms. Priyanka Sadar, Sr. DAG, Haryana. ***** Sumeet Goel (Oral): 1. Apprehending his arrest in FIR No.156 dated 10.05.2026 registered for offences punishable under Section of 21-B of NDPS Act at Police Station Sadar Sirsa District Sirsa; the petitioner has preferred this petition under Section 482 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 seeking pre-arrest bail. 2. On 02.07.2026, the following order was passed: “Apprehending his arrest in FIR No.156 dated 10.05.2026 registered for offences punishable under Section of 21-B of NDPS Act at Police Station Sadar Sirsa District Sirsa; the petitioner has preferred this petition under Section 482 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 seeking pre-arrest bail. Counsel for the petitioner, inter alia, contends that the petitioner is sought to be implicated into the FIR in question solely on the basis of a disclosure statement made by co-accused from whom the contraband in question has been allegedly NAVEEN NAGPAL 2026.07.27 18:21 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment HIgh Court Chandigarh CRM-M-33963-2026 P a g e | 2 recovered & the petitioner is willing to join investigation and cooperate therein. In order to buttress his arguments, learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the dicta of the judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in ‘Vijay Singh versus The State of Haryana’ bearing Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No(s).1266/2023, ‘State by (NCB) Bengaluru vs. Pallulabid Ahmad Arimutta & Anr’ 2022(1) RCR (Criminal) 762, ‘Tofan Singh vs. State of Tamil Nadu, AIR 2020 Supreme Court 5592, ‘Smt. Najmunisha, Abdul Hamid Chandmiya @ Ladoo Bapu vs. State of Gujrat, Narcotics Control Bureau’ 2024 INSC 29 and ‘Jugraj Singh Vs. State of Punjab’ bearing Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.)No.9190/2025. Adjourned to 27.07.2026. Status report dated 01.07.2026 in the form of an affidavit of Rajesh Kumar, HPS, Deputy Superintendent of Police (Sadar), Sirsa, District Sirsa has been filed on behalf of respondent-State. The same be taken on record. The petitioner is directed to appear before the Investigating Officer on 07.07.2026 at 11:00 A.M. in concerned Police Station and join investigation. In the event of arrest, the petitioner shall be released on interim bail subject to his furnishing personal/surety bond(s) to the satisfaction of the Arresting Officer/Investigating Officer. As and when further called by Investigating Officer, the petitioner shall join the investigation. He shall abide by the condition(s) enumerated under Section 482(2) of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.” 3. Learned State counsel (on instructions) has submitted that the petitioner has joined the investigation and is not required for custodial interrogation. 4. Keeping in view the factual milieu of the case in hand, especially the factum of the petitioner having joined investigation & cooperated therein and he being arrayed as an accused on the basis of disclosure statement, this Court is inclined to confirm the order dated 02.07.2026, in light of the dicta of the judgment passed by this Court in CRM-M-54032-2024 ‘Ashu Vs. State of Punjab’ and recent judgment of NAVEEN NAGPAL 2026.07.27 18:21 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment HIgh Court Chandigarh CRM-M-33963-2026 P a g e | 3 the Hon’ble Supreme Court passed in ‘Jugraj Singh Vs. State of Punjab’ bearing Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No.9190/2025. 5. Accordingly, the petition is allowed and the order dated 02.07.2026 granting interim anticipatory bail to the petitioner is hereby made absolute, subject to the conditions as enumerated under Section 482(2) of BNSS. 6. This order should not be treated as “blanket” order. It will not be read granting petitioner indefinite protection from arrest. It shall be confined to the FIR mentioned ibid and will not operate in respect of any other incident that involves commission of an offence. 7. Liberty is reserved in favour of State/complainant to move for cancellation/recall of this order in case the petitioner violates any condition stipulated under Section 482(2) of BNSS or upon showing any other sufficient cause. 8. Needless to say that anything observed herein above shall not be construed to be an opinion on the merits of the case. 9. Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed off. (SUMEET GOEL) 27.07.2026 JUDGE Naveen Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No Whether Reportable : Yes/No NAVEEN NAGPAL 2026.07.27 18:21 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment HIgh Court Chandigarh