CRM-M-49440-2026 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 101 CRM-M-49440-2026 (O&M) Date of decision:02.09.2026 Sukhdev ... Petitioner Vs. State of Punjab ... Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANISHA BATRA Present: Mr. Geeteshwar Saini, Advocate for the petitioner. Ms. Ruchika Sabherwal, Sr. DAG, Punjab. ... Manisha Batra, J. (Oral). 1. The instant petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking benefit of anticipatory bail in case arising out of FIR No.239, dated 15.08.2026, registered under Sections 21(b) and 29 of the NDPS Act, at Police Station Dinanagar, District Gurdaspur. 2. As per the allegations, on 15.08.2026, a police party, while on patrolling duty, reached near Paniyar Cremation Ground, where they noticed a young person sitting on the cemented chairs. Upon seeing the police vehicle, he became scared and started moving backwards. On suspicion, the police party stopped the vehicle and apprehended him. At that time, he was taking out a white waxed envelope from the right pocket of his pants and tried to throw the same away. On interrogation, he HARJEET KAUR 2026.09.03 11:15 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-49440-2026 (O&M) -2- disclosed his name as Rohit Kumar. Upon checking the envelope, 15 grams of heroin was recovered from his conscious possession. The recovered contraband was taken into possession by the police. He was formally arrested. On interrogation, he suffered disclosure statement to the effect that the recovered contraband had been purchased by him from the present petitioner. The petitioner was nominated as such. Investigation is still underway. Apprehending his arrest, the petitioner moved an application for grant of anticipatory bail which was dismissed by the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Gurdaspur, vide order dated 25.08.2026. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that he has been falsely implicated in this case on the basis of disclosure statement of co- accused, which cannot be considered to be legally admissible in evidence. No recovery has been effected from him. He is ready to join the investigation. His custodial interrogation is not required. The recovered contraband is of non-commercial quantity and hence, rigors of Section 37 of the NDPS Act are not attracted qua him. It is, therefore, urged that the petitioner deserves to be granted the concession of anticipatory bail. 4. Notice of motion. 5. Learned State counsel has advance notice of the petition and has argued that the allegations levelled against the petitioner are serious in nature. Co-accused Rohit Kumar from whom 15 grams of heroin had been recovered specifically took his name as supplier of the contraband to him. For conducting thorough investigation into the matter, custodial HARJEET KAUR 2026.09.03 11:15 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-49440-2026 (O&M) -3- interrogation of the petitioner is required. There is no exceptional or extraordinary circumstance for exercising powers for grant of anticipatory bail is made out. It is, therefore, stressed that the petition does not deserve to be allowed. 6. This Court has heard the rival submissions made by learned counsel for the parties. 7. The petitioner is alleged to be the supplier of the contraband to the co-accused. He has been nominated on the basis of disclosure statement of co-accused, from whom the alleged contraband had been recovered. However, he is involved in two more cases. The allegations make out a prima facie case for commission of subject offences as against the petitioner. For the purpose of conducting proper investigation into the matter and for eliciting information as to the trail from where the contraband had been sourced, his custodial interrogation is must. It is well settled proposition of law that powers for grant of anticipatory bail should be exercised in exceptional and extraordinary circumstances and not in routine manner. No such circumstance, however, has been made out in this case. If the petitioner is given the shield of anticipatory bail that shall leave many glaring loopholes and gaps, thereby adversely affecting the investigation. The Court is also required to see that an order of anticipatory bail does not operate as inroad in the normal legal procedure of criminal cases by the trial Court. Accordingly, finding no compelling ground to allow the petition, the same is dismissed. 8. It is, however, clarified that observations made hereinabove HARJEET KAUR 2026.09.03 11:15 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-49440-2026 (O&M) -4- 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) 02.09.2026 JUDGE harjeet Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/No HARJEET KAUR 2026.09.03 11:15 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document