Gurjant Singh vs State

$~80
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
th
% Date of Decision: 13 October, 2026
# CNR No. DLHC010495062026
+ BAIL APPLN. 4350/2026 & CRL.M.A. 32230/2026
GURJANT SINGH .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Abhishek Gupta, Advocate.
(M): 9718062292

versus
STATE .....Respondent
Through: Mr. Ajay Vikram Singh, APP for the
State.
(M): 9868632122
Email:
[email protected]
SI Chetan, PS Crime Branch.
(M): 9466887794
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MINI PUSHKARNA
MINI PUSHKARNA, J. (Oral):



1. The present petition has been filed under Section 482 of the Bharatiya
Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (“BNSS”), seeking grant of anticipatory bail
to the petitioner, i.e., Sh. Gurjant Singh S/o Sh. Puran Singh, invoking the
jurisdiction of this Court, seeking protection from arrest in connection with
th
the First Information Report (“FIR”), being FIR No. 89/2026, dated 16 April,
2026, registered at Police Station (“PS”) Crime Branch, Delhi, under Sections
18/23 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (“NDPS
Act”).
2. The facts, relevant for adjudication of the present application, as culled
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:HARIOM SHARMA
Signing Date:16.10.2026
09:24:44
Page 1 of 5

from the documents on record, are as follows:
th
2.1. On 16 April, 2026, on the basis of secret information, a raid was
conducted at a warehouse of DHL Courier Services, located at Rama Road,
Moti Nagar, Delhi, wherein, upon search of a parcel bearing tracking ID
2521789443 , some clothes and two pairs of shoes were found.
2.2. On further inspection of the said shoes, four transparent polythene
packets containing 250 grams of opium were recovered.
2.3. Accordingly, the present case was registered and investigation was
carried out.
2.4. A co-accused, namely, Sh. Mohitpal Singh, was arrested and during
interrogation, who disclosed that he used to procure the contraband from one
Sh. Sarabjeet.
2.5. During interrogation, the accused, Sh. Sarabjeet, disclosed that he
procured the said contraband from the petitioner herein.
3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the
petitioner’s name has only been disclosed by the accused. Further, neither is
there any money trail, which has been discovered linking the petitioner, nor
any recovery has been made from the petitioner.
4. Opposing the present application, learned Additional Public Prosecutor
(“APP”) for the State categorically submits that the name of the petitioner has
been disclosed by the co-accused, Sh. Sarabjeet.
5. Learned APP for the State further submits that the petitioner herein has
st
been earlier convicted on 21 November, 2024 under the NDPS Act. After
conviction, he has been involved in the same offence under NDPS Act.
6. He submits that notice under Section 67 of the NDPS Act was issued
to the petitioner to join the investigation. However, the petitioner never joined
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:HARIOM SHARMA
Signing Date:16.10.2026
09:24:44
Page 2 of 5

the investigation.
7. He further submits that the said notices under Section 67 of the NDPS
Act were sent to Amritsar, Punjab, where the petitioner resides and the same
were received by his sister.
8. Learned APP for the State submits that Non-Bailable Warrants
(“NBWs”) have already been issued against the petitioner, as the petitioner
did not cooperate in the investigation. He further submits that proceedings for
declaring the petitioner as Proclaimed Offender have also been initiated and
th
the next date before the Sessions Court is 27 October, 2026.
9. Having heard learned counsel appearing for the parties, this Court notes
that the petitioner has earlier been convicted under the NDPS Act on the
ground of recovery of 10 grams of Heroin from him.
10. It is also noted that the petitioner has not joined the investigation
despite notices under Section 67 of the NDPS Act having been served upon
the petitioner. Thus, NBWs already stand issued against the petitioner and
proceedings for declaring the petitioner as Proclaimed Offender are also
pending.
11. This Court notes the submission made by the learned APP for the State
that the custodial interrogation of the petitioner is necessary to unearth the
complete conspiracy in the present case, including, the tracing of forward and
backward linkages to the chain of contraband in question.
12. This Court also notes that though the co-accused have been released on
bail, they were apprehended, interrogated and then released on regular bail.
Thus, the ground of parity would not be tenable, as the co-accused persons
were granted regular bail only after their arrest, and after approximately two
months of custody.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:HARIOM SHARMA
Signing Date:16.10.2026
09:24:44
Page 3 of 5

13. Moreover, this Court notes that the petitioner is also involved in other
criminal cases of similar nature and has been convicted in the said case.
14. Fruitful reference may be drawn to the decision of the Supreme Court
in the case of Srikant Upadhyay and Others Versus State of Bihar and
Another, (2024) 12 SCC 382 , wherein, it has been stated that though power
to grant anticipatory bail is an extraordinary power, however, the same has to
be used with caution as it may lead to tampering, dissolution or destruction of
evidence. The relevant portion of the said judgement reads as under:
“xxx xxx xxx
30. We have already held that the power to grant anticipatory
bail is an extraordinary power. Though in many cases it was
held that bail is said to be a rule, it cannot, by any stretch of
imagination, be said that anticipatory bail is the rule. It cannot
be the rule and the question of its grant should be left to the
cautious and judicious discretion by the court depending on the
facts and circumstances of each case. While called upon to
exercise the said power, the court concerned has to be very
cautious as the grant of interim protection or protection to the
accused in serious cases may lead to miscarriage of justice and
may hamper the investigation to a great extent as it may
sometimes lead to tampering or distraction of the evidence. We
shall not be understood to have held that the court shall not pass
an interim protection pending consideration of such application
as the section is destined to safeguard the freedom of an individual
against unwarranted arrest and we say that such orders shall be
passed in eminently fit cases. At any rate, when warrant of arrest
or proclamation is issued, the applicant is not entitled to invoke
the extraordinary power. Certainly, this will not deprive the
power of the court to grant pre-arrest bail in extreme, exceptional
cases in the interest of justice. But then, person(s) continuously
defying orders and keeps absconding is not entitled to such grant.
xxx xxx xxx”
(Emphasis Supplied)

Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:HARIOM SHARMA
Signing Date:16.10.2026
09:24:44
Page 4 of 5

15. Considering the facts and circumstances of the present case and that the
allegations against the petitioner being serious in nature, this Court is of the
view that the custodial interrogation of the petitioner would be necessary as
stated by learned APP for the State.
16. Accordingly, no merit is found in the present petition
17. The present petition along with the pending application is accordingly
dismissed.


MINI PUSHKARNA, J
OCTOBER 13, 2026
c




Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:HARIOM SHARMA
Signing Date:16.10.2026
09:24:44
Page 5 of 5