Sahab Singh Alias Shab Singh vs State Of Haryana

CRM-M-60319-2026 (O&M) -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
206
CRM-M-60319-2026 (O&M)
Date of decision: 30.10.2026
SAHAB SINGH ALIAS SHAB SINGH ...PETITIONER
VERSUS
STATE OF HARYANA ...RESPONDENT
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE YASHVIR SINGH RATHOR
Present:- Mr. Satnam Singh Gill, Advocate
for the petitioner.
Mr. Abhinav Mahant, AAG, Haryana.
YASHVIR SINGH RATHOR, J. (Oral)
1. Prayer in this petition under Section 482 of BNSS, 2023 is for
grant of anticipatory bail in case FIR No.276 dated 19 .08.2026 , registered
under Sections 15(C) of NDPS Act, 1985 (Section 29 of NDPS Act added
later on) at Police Station Pundri , District Kaithal.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned State
counsel have been heard and material collected by the police during
investigation has been perused.
3. In compliance of order dated 16.10.2026, status report by way
of an affidavit of Ramesh Chander, HPS, Deputy Superintendent of Police,
Kaithal, filed on behalf of the State is taken on record.
4. The brief facts of the prosecution case are that on 19.08.2026,
police intercepted a truck bearing registration No.PB11CN-9737 on the basis
PRIYANKA THAKUR
2026.10.31 16:56
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CRM-M-60319-2026 (O&M) -2-
of secret information, which was being driven by its driver namely Sandeep
Singh. The truck was checked and 4 quintal 88 Kg 600 grams of doda post
was recovered. During investigation, accused identified the place where he
had loaded the contraband and in his disclosure statement, he has nominated
the present petitioner as the person who had actually purchased the
contraband. Apprehending arrest, petitioner applied for anticipatory bail but
the same was rejected.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that petitioner has
been falsely implicated on the basis of disclosure statement suffered by the
main accused namely Sandeep Singh but the disclosure statement is not
admissible and cannot be used against him. Learned counsel next contended
that the truck in question being driven by main accused Sandeep Singh was
attached with the transport company of the petitioner and petitioner has no
concern with the contraband recovered from co-accused. He has no past
antecedents. Recovery has already been effected and as such, his custodial
interrogation is not required. Learned counsel next contended that petitioner
is also ready to join the investigation and to abide by the conditions that may
be imposed by the Court and benefit of anticipatory bail be extended in his
favour.
6. On the other hand, learned State counsel has opposed the bail
and argued that the allegations against the petitioner are serious in nature
and his custodial interrogation is essential to ascertain the source from where
the contraband was purchased and he does not deserve the concession of
anticipatory bail.
PRIYANKA THAKUR
2026.10.31 16:56
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CRM-M-60319-2026 (O&M) -3-
7. It is well settled that the power to grant anticipatory bail is of
extra-ordinary nature and is to be sparingly used with circumspection as held
in 2022 (4) RCR (Criminal) 968 titled as " Sachin @ Sachin Ahuja Vs.
State of Punjab ". In SLP (Crl.) 7940 of 2023 titled as " Shri Kant Upadhay
Vs. State of Bihar ", Hon'ble Apex Court has held that grant of interim
protection or protection from arrest to an accused in a serious case may lead
to miscarriage of justice and may hamper investigation to a great extent as it
may sometimes lead to tampering or destruction of evidence. The Court is
cognizant of the fact that power of anticipatory bail is to be exercised in
exceptional circumstances as it may cause some hindrance to the normal
flow of investigation which would undermine the case of the prosecution.
8. In the present case, huge quantity of doda post has been
recovered from the possession of co-accused in the truck being driven by
him. It is not in dispute that the truck in question was attached with the
transport company of the petitioner and co-accused Sandeep Singh has
suffered a disclosure statement that the contraband was actually purchased
by petitioner which was being transported by him. The investigation is still
at initial stage and the source from where contraband was purchased has to
be ascertained for which custodial interrogation of the petitioner is essential
and grant of anticipatory bail will rather hamper the investigation. It is well
settled that custodial interrogation is considered “qualitatively elicitation
oriented” than questioning a suspect, who is not in custody. This means that
it is seen as a more effective tool for uncovering the truth and obtaining vital
information, especially in serious and complex cases, where the suspects
PRIYANKA THAKUR
2026.10.31 16:56
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CRM-M-60319-2026 (O&M) -4-
presence and co-operation are crucial to uncover the concealed evidence.
Moreover, in case, petitioner is interrogated under the protective umbrella of
the order of interim bail to be passed by this Court, he is not likely to answer
the questions in the right earnest. Moreover, the investigation is at nascent
stage and in case, the petitioner is released on anticipatory bail, it will
hamper the investigation.
9. Resultantly, taking into consideration the gravity of the offence
and the facts noticed hereinabove, this Court is of the considered opinion
that the petitioner does not deserve the concession of anticipatory bail and
accordingly, the present petition is hereby dismissed.
10. Pending misc. application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed
of.
30.10.2026 (YASHVIR SINGH RATHOR)
Priyanka Thakur
JUDGE
Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No
Whether reportable Yes/No
PRIYANKA THAKUR
2026.10.31 16:56
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document