Sandeep vs State Of Haryana

1
CRM CRM-M-59820 CRM CRM 59820 59820-2026 59820 2026 2026 2026


111 111 111 111
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH AT CHANDIGARH AT CHANDIGARH

CRM CRM-M-59820 CRM CRM 59820 59820-2026 59820 2026 2026 2026

Sandeep
….Petitioner
versus
State of Haryana
….Respondent

Date of Decision: Date of Decision: October 30 Date of Decision: Date of Decision: October 30 October 30, 2026 October 30 , 2026 , 2026 , 2026
Date of Uploading: Date of Uploading: October 30 Date of Uploading: Date of Uploading: October 30 October 30, 2026 October 30 , 2026 , 2026 , 2026

CORAM: CORAM: CORAM: CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL

Present: Present:- Present: Present: Mr. D.S. Virk, Advocate for the petitioner.

Ms. Mahima Yashpal Singla, Senior DAG Haryana.



SUMEET GOEL SUMEET GOEL, J. (ORAL) SUMEET GOEL SUMEET GOEL , J. (ORAL) , J. (ORAL) , J. (ORAL)

nd
Present 2 petition has been filed under Section 482 of the
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short ‘BNSS’) (erstwhile
Section 438 Cr. P.C.) for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner, in case
bearing FIR No.111 dated 12.07.2025, registered for the offences punishable
under Section 15(C) of the NDPS Act, 1985, at Police Station Nangal
Chaudhary, District Narnaul.
The last anticipatory bail plea of the petitioner was dismissed as
withdrawn, vide order dated 24.04.2026 passed in CRM CRM-M-22801 22801-2026 2026,
CRM CRM 22801 22801 2026 2026
wherein the following order was passed:
“ 1. Apprehending his arrest in FIR No.111 dated 12.07.2025
registered for offences punishable under Section 15(C) of the
NDPS Act, at Police Station Nangal Chaudhary, District Narnaul;







MAHAVIR SINGH
2026.10.30 16:43
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this order/ judgment

2
CRM CRM-M-59820 CRM CRM 59820 59820-2026 59820 2026 2026 2026

the petitioner has preferred this petition under Section 482 of
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 seeking prearrest bail.
2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, at the outset,
has very fairly submitted that the petitioner has been declared a
proclaimed offender and steps are being taken by the petitioner for
impugning the said order. He further submits that he may be
permitted to withdraw the petition in hand, at this stage.
3. Ordered accordingly. ”

2. For the sake of ease, relevant factual milieu is drawn from the
order dated 16.04.2026 passed by the concerned Sessions Court (whereby
anticipatory bail plea of the petitioner was rejected), reads thus:
“ 2. The facts in brief, as per the police reply, are that on
12.07.2025, ASI Dinesh alongwith HC Anil Kumar, HC Sandeep
Kumar, Ct. Ashish, Ct. Bhupender were on patrolling duty in
Government vehicle HR-35GV-3000 being driven by Ct. Shiv
Charan at Gothri turn, Nangal Chaudhary. Secret information was
received that Ankit and Manish who are involved in selling
contraband material are coming from Jaipur towards Nangal
Chaudhary in vehicle Verna bearing registration no. DL10CD-
9238 having poppy straw in their possession and if barricades are
installed near Datal Bus stand they may be nabbed. Upon
receiving the information notice under Section 42 NDPS Act was
prepared and Ct. Bhupender was sent to PS Nangal Chaudhary to
apprise the senior officers and raiding party was prepared. Search
was conducted for the said car, which was found near Parshuram
Chowk, which was stopped. Upon checking two persons were
found in the car, who told their names as Ankit and Manish,
sitting on the driver seat and conductor seat respectively.
Thereupon, notice under Section 50 NDPS Act was served upon
the both the persons and the personal search was conducted by the
Gazetted officer, Dinesh Kumar, DSP, however, nothing was
found from their personal search. That upon conducting the search
of the afore-said car, six plastic bags were found which were
placed in the rear seat and in the boot-space, upon opening the
same contraband substance poppy straw was recovered. Upon
weighing the same, the total weight was found to be 91 Kg 500
grams. Accordingly all the six bags were seized and FIR was
lodged. ”

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the petitioner
has been falsely implicated into the FIR in question. Learned counsel has
argued that the petitioner has not been named in the FIR in question. Learned







MAHAVIR SINGH
2026.10.30 16:43
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this order/ judgment

3
CRM CRM-M-59820 CRM CRM 59820 59820-2026 59820 2026 2026 2026

counsel has further iterated that the petitioner has been implicated solely on the
basis of disclosure statement of co-accused, which per se is not admissible in
law, and the same cannot be made basis to show complicity of the petitioner in
the commission of offence in question. Learned counsel has further argued that
except the aforesaid disclosure statement, there is not even an iota of evidence,
available with the prosecution, to show complicity of the petitioner in the
offence in question.
3.1. Learned counsel has urged that co-accused of the petitioner,
namely, Manish and Ankit @ Kala have already been accorded the concession
of Regular Bail by this Court, vide orders dated 20.05.2026 passed in CRM CRM CRM-M- CRM
27587 27587-2026 27587 27587 2026 2026 2026 and dated 17.09.2026 passed in CRM CRM-M-40672 CRM CRM 40672 40672-2026 40672 2026 2026, 2026
respectively.
3.2. Learned counsel has argued that nothing is to be recovered from
the petitioner. Learned counsel has further iterated that the petitioner is ready
and willing to join investigation. On the basis of the aforementioned
submissions, grant of the instant petition is prayed for.
4. Learned State counsel has filed status report by way of an
affidavit dated 23.10.2026, in the Court today, which is taken on record. Role
of the petitioner, as mentioned in the FIR in question, reads thus:
“ 13. That the name of the petitioner has surfaced in the
disclosure statement of co-accused Ankit and Manish who
were arrested in the present case on 12.07.2025 and during
interrogation, they suffered disclosure statements
respectively (AnnexureR-1 and R-2) wherein accused
Ankit and Manish have disclosed that they had purchased
the recovered doda post from Ram Singh, r/o Neemach
M.P through Sandeep i.e. the petitioner. It is pertinent to
mention here that the petitioner was directly involved in the
present crime as co-accused Ankit and Manish had
purchased the Intoxicant Substance i.e. poppy straw from a







MAHAVIR SINGH
2026.10.30 16:43
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this order/ judgment

4
CRM CRM-M-59820 CRM CRM 59820 59820-2026 59820 2026 2026 2026

person Ram Singh through the petitioner who was mediator
in the said transaction.
14. That the role of the petitioner which has been established
during the course of investigation is that the petitioner was
having the friendship co-accused Ankit and the petitioner
told Ankit that he know driving and he can supply narcotic
substances to his village in Haryana, adjoining Punjab by
brining the narcotic substance from his friend Ram Singh
Sondia, R/o Gulab Kheda, near Neemuch, M.P who will
hand over the narcotic substance to him and he (petitioner
will pay him Rs.20,000/- for each trip. The petitioner was
having a Verna car which he will transfer in his name and
in accordance with petitioner's plan, he brought the car to
Ankit and the petitioner and Ankit signed certain
documents in the court at Mahendragarh. After obtaining
the Verna car, co-accused Ankit took co-accused Manish
along and reached the place indicated by the petitioner
where the petitioner had already made prior contact and on
the direction of the petitioner, 6 sacks of poppy straw (doda
post) filled in plastic bags were loaded into their vehicle
Verna. Thereafter, co-accused Ankit and Manish with the
contraband in their Verna car were proceeding to
petitioner's house and on the way below the culvert of the
highway near Nangal Chaudhary, the police apprehended
them along with the Verna car laden with poppy straw and
recovered 91.500 kg poppy straw which was taken into
police possession vide recovery memo. During
interrogation, co-accused Ankit and Manish suffered
disclosure statements respectively (Annexure R-1 and R-2)
wherein they have admitted their involvement in the
present crime alongwith petitioner.
15. That the petitioner is the person, who has been found
involved in the present case as mediator who got purchased
narcotic contraband i.e. 91.500 kg poppy straw from a
person namely Ram Singh (yet to be arrested) to co-
accused Ankit and Manish who were apprehended by the
police on 12.07.2025 and during inspection of their Verna
Car, narcotic substance i.e. 91.500 Kg poppy straw was
recovered from their Verna Car which was taken into
police possession vide recovery memo. It is pertinent to
mention here that the name of the petitioner has surfaced in
the disclosure statements of co-accused Ankit and Manish,
according to which the petitioner was the mediator in the
present crime. So, in view of the above, the custodial
interrogation of the petitioner is required in the present case
to unearth the source of procurement of the narcotic
contraband and for effective and proper investigation. ”








MAHAVIR SINGH
2026.10.30 16:43
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this order/ judgment

5
CRM CRM-M-59820 CRM CRM 59820 59820-2026 59820 2026 2026 2026

4.1. As regards the evidence available against the petitioner, it has
been stated in the said status report as under:
“ 7. That during further investigation, the sealed samples
obtained through the inventory proceedings were sent to
R/FSL Sunariya Rohtak for analysis vide RC
No.29679520250729539046178 dated 29.07.2025 and the
report of R/FSL Sunaria has been received (Copy of report
of R/FSL Sunaria dated 26.08.2025 is annexed herewith as
Annexure R-3), according to which the samples were
identified as poppy straw (doda post). It is submitted that
the investigating officer obtained the CDRs of mobile
no.7027084850 pertaining to accused Ankit and mobile
no.9896552634 pertaining to accused Sandeep i.e. the
petitioner (Copy of CDRs of accused Ankit and the
petitioner is annexed herewith as Annexure R-4), according
to which they have conversation with each other. After
completion of investigation, challan u/s 193 BNSS was
prepared against accused Ankit and Manish u/s 15 (c) of
NDPS Act and submitted in the Ld. Court on 03-09-25. The
charge u/s 15 (c) of NDPS Act was framed against them by
the Ld. Trial Court vide order dated 09.10.2025 and now
the case is fixed on 21.10.2026. It is pertinent to mention
here that six (6) prosecution witnesses have been examined
out of seventeen (17) PWs and eleven (11) PWs including
the IO and other material witnesses are yet to be
examined. ”

4.2. The said status report also discloses the antecedents of the
petitioner; details whereof read thus:
“ 12. That as per record of the Police Station, Nangal Chaudhary,
three (3) more criminal cases are found registered/pending
against the petitioner except the present case and he has
been declared proclaimed person in the present case vide
order dated 24.02.2026 order dated 24.02.2026 whereby the
petitioner was declared proclaimed person has been
quashed by this Hon'ble High Court vide order dated
08.09.2026 in CRM-M-47969 of 2026). The detail of other
cases is as under:-
1. FIR no.73/2021 u/s 8/15/29 NDPS Act, P.S. GRP Shyam
Garh, District Mansor Madhya Pradesh. (Detail of the case
not traced out on the Court site).
2. FIR no.371/2023 u/s 15B, 18C, 27A, 29 of NDPS Act and
section 201 of IPC, P.S. Sadar Kaithal. (The case is fixed
on 23.03.2027 for PW's and the petitioner is on bail).







MAHAVIR SINGH
2026.10.30 16:43
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this order/ judgment

6
CRM CRM-M-59820 CRM CRM 59820 59820-2026 59820 2026 2026 2026

3. FIR no.236/2024 u/s 15 NDPS Act, P.S. Raujond, District
Kaithal. (The case is fixed on 25.03.2027 for PW's and the
petitioner is on bail). ”

Raising submissions in tandem with the said status report, learned
State counsel has opposed the grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner by
arguing that allegations raised against the petitioner are serious in nature.
Learned State counsel has further argued that investigation in the present case
is still underway and the petitioner is yet to be arrested. Given these
circumstances, custodial interrogation of the petitioner is indispensable.
Learned State counsel submits that in case the petitioner is accorded concession
of anticipatory bail, there is all likelihood that he may abscond from the process
of justice as also influence the prosecution witnesses. Thus, the present petition
is devoid of merit and is liable to be dismissed.
5. I have heard the learned counsel for the rival parties and have
gone through the available record of the case.
6. As per the prosecution case, serious allegations have been leveled
against the petitioner. Perusal of the prosecution case, the material available on
record, the status report filed by the State as also the order whereby the
petitioner’s application for anticipatory bail was dismissed by the concerned
Sessions Court, prima facie reveals that huge quantity of the contraband has
been recovered in this case. Perusal of the prosecution case further, prima facie ,
reveals that the name of the petitioner surfaced during the course of
investigation on the basis of the disclosure statement of the co-accused.
However, the implication of the petitioner does not rest solely upon the
aforesaid disclosure statement; rather, the material available on record, at this
juncture, including the Call Detail Records between co-accused and the







MAHAVIR SINGH
2026.10.30 16:43
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this order/ judgment

7
CRM CRM-M-59820 CRM CRM 59820 59820-2026 59820 2026 2026 2026

petitioner, coupled with the investigation conducted thus far, prima facie
establishes the complicity of the petitioner in the offence in question.
6.1. The co-accused of the petitioner have been stated to be granted
the concession of regular bail; however, the petitioner seeks the extraordinary
relief of anticipatory bail. The considerations and parameters governing grant
of regular bail are distinct from those applicable to the grant of anticipatory
bail. Consequently, the petitioner cannot claim parity with his co-accused
merely on the ground that they have been granted regular bail.
6.2. Perusal of the petition in hand shows that the petitioner has
himself admitted therein that he is involved in 03 more FIR(s). The aforesaid
criminal antecedent(s) reveal that the petitioner is a habitual offender with a
tendency to indulge in criminal activities. Such antecedent(s) cannot be brushed
aside as a mere coincidence and are a relevant consideration while adjudicating
the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail. The criminal antecedent(s) of the
petitioner also raise a reasonable apprehension that, if enlarged on bail, he may
indulge in similar criminal activities, misuse the concession of bail, or interfere
with the fair course of justice. The possibility of his absconding or influencing
prosecution witnesses also cannot be ruled out.
6.3. The other pleas raised by the petitioner, including those of false
implication etc., are matters to be adjudicated on the basis of evidence during
the course of trial. Such disputed questions of fact(s) cannot be conclusively
determined at the stage of consideration of the petitioner’s prayer for
anticipatory bail.







MAHAVIR SINGH
2026.10.30 16:43
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this order/ judgment

8
CRM CRM-M-59820 CRM CRM 59820 59820-2026 59820 2026 2026 2026

6.4. No cause nay plausible cause has been shown, at this stage, from
which it can be deciphered that the petitioner has been falsely implicated into
the present FIR.
7. It is befitting to mention here that while considering plea for grant
of anticipatory bail, the Court has to equilibrate between safeguarding
individual rights and protecting societal interest(s). The Court ought to reckon
with the magnitude and nature of the offence; the role attributed to the accused;
the need for free and fair investigation as also the deeper and wider impact of
such alleged iniquities on the society. At this stage, there is no material on
record to hold that prima facie case is not made out against the petitioner. The
material which has come on record and preliminary investigation appear to
establish reasonable basis for the accusations. Thus, it is not appropriate to
grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner, as it would necessarily cause
impediment in effective investigation. A profitable reference in this regard is
being made to the dicta passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court titled as State State State v. State v. v. v.
Anil Sharma, (1997) 7 SCC 187 : 1997 SCC (Cri) 1039 Anil Sharma, (1997) 7 SCC 187 : 1997 SCC (Cri) 1039, the Supreme Court Anil Sharma, (1997) 7 SCC 187 : 1997 SCC (Cri) 1039 Anil Sharma, (1997) 7 SCC 187 : 1997 SCC (Cri) 1039
held as under, relevant whereof reads as under:
“ 6. We find force in the submission of CBI that custodial
interrogation is qualitatively more elicitation-oriented than
questioning a suspect who is well-ensconced with a favourable
order under Section 438 of the Code. In a case like this, effective
interrogation of a suspected person is of tremendous advantage in
disinterring many useful informations and also materials which
would have been concealed. Success in such interrogation would
elude if the suspected person knows that he is well protected and
insulated by a pre-arrest bail order during the time he is
interrogated. Very often interrogation in such a condition would
reduce to a mere ritual. The argument that the custodial
interrogation is fraught with the danger of the person being
subjected to third-degree methods need not be countenanced, for,
such an argument can be advanced by all accused in all criminal
cases. The Court has to presume that responsible police officers







MAHAVIR SINGH
2026.10.30 16:43
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this order/ judgment

9
CRM CRM-M-59820 CRM CRM 59820 59820-2026 59820 2026 2026 2026

would conduct themselves in a responsible manner and that those
entrusted with the task of disinterring offences would not conduct
themselves as offenders. ”

8. Accordingly, this Court is of the considered opinion that keeping
in view the entirety of the factual milieu of the case in hand; especially
seriousness of the allegations and antecedent(s) of the petitioner; this Court is
of the opinion that the petitioner is not entitled to the concession of anticipatory
bail. Moreover, custodial interrogation of the petitioner is necessary for an
effective investigation & to unravel the truth. The petition is, thus, devoid of
merits and is hereby dismissed dismissed dismissed. dismissed
9. Nothing said hereinabove shall be deemed to be an expression of
opinion upon merits of the case/investigation.
10. Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed off.









(SUMEET GOEL SUMEET GOEL SUMEET GOEL) SUMEET GOEL
JUDGE JUDGE JUDGE JUDGE
October 30 October 30, 2026 October 30 October 30 , 2026 , 2026 , 2026
mahavir
Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No

Whether reportable: Yes/No







MAHAVIR SINGH
2026.10.30 16:43
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this order/ judgment