CRM-M-44493-2026 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 213 CRM-M-44493-2026 (O&M) Date of decision:10.09.2026 Rohit @ Banti ... Petitioner Vs. State of Haryana ... Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANISHA BATRA Present: Mr. Sandeep Kumar Yadav, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Neeraj Poswal, AAG, Haryana. ... 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.113, dated 07.03.2024, registered under Section 20(b) of the NDPS Act (offence under Section 27-A of the NDPS Act has been added lateron), at Police Station City Narnaul, District Mahendergarh. 2. As per the allegations, on 07.03.2024, on receipt of a secret information to the effect that one Paramjit @ Sonu was coming from Aggarsain chowk side towards the Police Station City Narnaul while being in possession of some contraband and the same could be recovered from him, a raiding party was formed, which reached at the informed place and apprehended accused Paramjit @ Sonu. On conducting search, 01 kg and 55 grams of ganja was recovered from his conscious possession, which was HARJEET KAUR 2026.09.11 10:48 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-44493-2026 (O&M) -2- taken into custody by the police. He was formally arrested. On interrogation, he suffered disclosure statement that he had purchased the contraband from accused Rohti @ Chhali. Accused Rohit @ Chhali was nominated as an accused and was arrested. On interrogation, he disclosed that he had purchased the contraband from the present petitioner, who has also been nominated as an additional accused. Apprehending his arrest, the petitioner moved an application for grant of anticipatory bail, which has been dismissed by the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Narnaul vide order dated 29.07.2026. 3. It is argued by learned counsel for the petitioner 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. He was not named in the FIR. He is ready to join the investigation. His custodial interrogation is not required. No recovery is to the be effected from him. It is, therefore, argued that the petition deserves to be allowed. 4. Per contra, learned State counsel has argued that the allegations against the petitioner are serious in nature. He has been involved in four other case, one of which is under the provisions of the NDPS Act. There are chances of his committing similar offences or absconding, if extended benefit of bail. For the purpose of eliciting information as to the source from where the contraband had been procured, custodial interrogation of the petitioner is must. It is, therefore, stressed that the petition does not deserve to be allowed. 5. This Court has heard the rival submissions made by learned counsel for the parties. HARJEET KAUR 2026.09.11 10:48 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-44493-2026 (O&M) -3- 6. The petitioner is alleged to be the supplier of contraband, which was recovered from co-accused Paramjit. He is involved in another case of similar nature and three other cases under the provisions of the Indian Penal Code and as such, his antecedents are not clean. For the purpose of conducting thorough investigation into the matter, custodial interrogation of the petitioner 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. 7. It is, however, clarified that 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) 10.09.2026 JUDGE harjeet Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/No HARJEET KAUR 2026.09.11 10:48 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document