Sahil vs State Of Haryana

CRM-M-64225-2026 (O & M)
:: 1::
(102) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
CRM-M-64225-2026 (O & M)
Date of Decision:12.11.2026
Sahil
... Petitioner
Versus
State of Haryana ...Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASJIT SINGH BEDI
Present: Mr. Ankur Mehta, Advocate, for the petitioner.
Ms. Puneeta Sethi, Addl. A.G., Haryana.

JASJIT SINGH BEDI, J.
The prayer in the present petition under Section 482 BNSS, 2023
(Section 438 Cr.P.C.) is for the grant of anticipatory bail in case bearing FIR
No. 170 dated 24.05.2026 under Section 21(c) and 61, 85 of the NDPS Act,
registered at Police Station Parao, Ambala.
2. The brief facts of the case are that on 24.05.2026, one Amit
Kumar was apprehended with 451.83 grams of heroin. During the course of
investigation, he disclosed the name of petitioner-Sahil. The role attributed to
the petitioner is that the recovered contraband was purchased through the
petitioner and co-accused Rohit @ Jinu after making payment of
Rs.7,00,000/-.
SUKHPREET KAUR
2026.11.13 10:06
I agree to specified
portions of this document

CRM-M-64225-2026 (O & M)
:: 2::
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner
has been falsely implicated in the present case on the basis of a disclosure
statement of his co-accused without any corroborative evidence whatsoever.
Therefore, he was entitled to the concession of anticipatory bail. He placed
reliance on the judgments in the cases of Tofan Singh Versus State of Tamil
Nadu, 2020 AIR (Supreme Court) 5592 , Rakesh Kumar Singla Versus
Union of India, 2021(1) RCR (Criminal) 704 , Surinder Kumar Khanna
Versus Intelligence Officer Directorate of Revenue Intelligence, 2018(3)
RCR (Criminal) 954, State by (NCB) Bengaluru Versus Pallulabid Ahmad
Arimutta & Anr. 2022(1) RCR (Criminal) 762, Sanjeev Chandra Agarwal &
Anr. Versus Union of India 2021(4) RCR (Criminal) 590, Vijay Singh
Versus The State of Haryana, bearing Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No.
(s).1266/2023 decided on 17.05.2023 and Vikrant Singh Versus State of
Punjab, CRM-M-39657-2020 decided on 06.04.2022.
4. The learned counsel for the State, on the other hand, contends
that the petitioner is a habitual offender with 03 other cases registered against
him under the NDPS Act. She, therefore, contends that the criminal
antecedents of the petitioner do not entitle him to the grant of anticipatory
bail.
5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length.
SUKHPREET KAUR
2026.11.13 10:06
I agree to specified
portions of this document

CRM-M-64225-2026 (O & M)
:: 3::
6. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Haryana
Versus Samarth Kumar 2022 (3) RCR (Criminal) 991 , has held as under:-
“4. The High Court decided to grant pre-arrest bail to the
respondents on the only ground that no recovery was
effected from the respondents and that they had been
implicated only on the basis of the disclosure statement of
the main accused Dinesh Kumar. Therefore, reliance was
placed by the High Court in the majority judgment of this
Court in   Tofan Singh v. State of Tamil Nadu reported in
(2021) 4 SCC 1.
5. But, it is contended by the learned Additional Advocate
General appearing on behalf of the State of Haryana that
on the basis of the anticipatory bail granted to the
respondents, the Special Court was constrained to grant
regular bail even to the main accused-Dinesh Kumar and
he jumped bail. Fortunately, the main accused-Dinesh
Kumar has again been apprehended. According to the
learned Additional Advocate General, the respondent in
the second of these appeals is also a habitual offender.
6. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent
in the first of these Appeals contends that the State is guilty
of suppression of the vital fact that the respondent was
granted regular bail after the charge-sheet was filed and
that therefore, nothing survives in the appeal. But,we do
not agree.
7. The order of the Special Court granting regular bail to
the respondents shows that the said order was passed in
pursuance of the anticipatory bail granted by the High
SUKHPREET KAUR
2026.11.13 10:06
I agree to specified
portions of this document

CRM-M-64225-2026 (O & M)
:: 4::
Court. Therefore, the same cannot be a ground to hold that
the present appeals have become infructuous.
8. In cases of this nature, the respondents may be able to
take advantage of the decision in   Tofan Singh v. State of
Tamil Nadu (supra), perhaps at the time of arguing the
regular bail application or at the time of final hearing
after conclusion of the trial.
9. To grant anticipatory bail in a case of this nature is not
really warranted. Therefore, we are of the view that the
High Court fell into an error in granting anticipatory bail
to the respondents.
10. In view of the above, the appeals are allowed. The
impugned orders are set-aside. As a consequence, the
Appellant-State is entitled to take steps, in accordance with
law.
[emphasis supplied]
7. In Vijay Singh Versus The State of Haryana, bearing Special
Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No.(s).1266/2023 decided on 17.05.2023 , it was held
as under:-
“T he petitioner is alleged to have committed offences
under Sections 15 and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and
Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter called the
NDPS Act". His application for anticipatory bail was
rejected by the High Court. The allegations in the FIR are
that 1.7 Kg of Poppy Straw (Doda Post) was recovered from
the co-accused. The petitioner concededly was not present
at the spot but was named by the co-accused. That apart
SUKHPREET KAUR
2026.11.13 10:06
I agree to specified
portions of this document

CRM-M-64225-2026 (O & M)
:: 5::
there is no other material to implicate the petitioner. The
prosecution urges that another case with allegations of
commission of offence under the NDPS Act are pending
against the petitioner. It is not denied that in those
proceedings he was granted bail.
Having regard to these circumstances, the
petitioner is directed to the enlarged on anticipatory bail,
subject to such terms and conditions as the trial Court may
impose.
The petition is allowed.
All pending applications are disposed of. ”
(emphasis supplied)
8. This Court in the case of Vikrant Singh Versus State of Punjab,
CRM-M-39657-2020 decided on 06.04.2022 has held as under:-
“It is not in dispute that the petitioners have not been
named in the FIR. No recovery has been effected from the
petitioners and the alleged recovery has been effected from
two co-accused Rakesh Sharma and Ravdeep Singh alias
Sheru. The petitioners are sought to be implicated solely
on the basis of the disclosure statement made by the co-
accused Rakesh Sharma and Ravdeep Singh @ Sheru and
even after the petitioners were arrayed as accused in
pursuance of the disclosure statements, no recovery had
been made from the petitioners.
The petitioners have been in custody since 06.11.2020
(Vikrant Singh), 05.12.2020 (Subash Chander) and
23.04.2021 (Davinder Singh) and challan in the present
case has already been presented and there are 32
SUKHPREET KAUR
2026.11.13 10:06
I agree to specified
portions of this document

CRM-M-64225-2026 (O & M)
:: 6::
witnesses, out of whom only one has been examined and
thus, the trial is likely to take time on account of Covid-19
Pandemic. The petitioners are not involved in any other
case. With respect to the call details, suffice to say that no
dates on which the said calls had been allegedly made by
the coaccused, Rakesh Sharma and Ravdeep Singh alias
Sheru to the petitioners or vice-versa have been mentioned
in the affidavit or in the report under Section 173 Cr.P.C.
Moreover, even the transcript of the said conversations are
not a part of the record under Section 173 Cr.P.C. A
Division Bench of this Court in Narcotics Control Bureau's
case (supra), was pleased to observe as under:-
Still further, no conversation detail between accused
Ramesh Kumar Patil and accused Sandeep has been
produced by the prosecution. Mere call details is not
sufficient to prove that Sandeep accused was also
involved in the business of narcotic drugs or he had
any connected with Ramesh Kumar Patil.
In view of the above, no case is made out for grant
of leave to appeal against the acquittal of Sandeep
accused.”
In judgment of the Gujarat High Court in Yash Jayeshbhai
Champaklal Shah's case (supra), it has been observed as
under:-
“Having heard learned advocates for the appearing
parties, it emerges on record that the applicant is not
found in possession of any contraband article. Over
and above that, the call data records may reveal that
SUKHPREET KAUR
2026.11.13 10:06
I agree to specified
portions of this document

CRM-M-64225-2026 (O & M)
:: 7::
in an around the time of incident, he was in contact
with the co-accused who were found in possession of
contraband. Since there is no recording of
conversation in between the accused, mere contacts
with the co-accused who were found in possession
cannot be treated to be a corroborative material in
absence of substantive material found against the
accused.”
A perusal of the above judgment would show that
without the transcript of the conversations exchanged
between the co-accused, mere call details would not be
considered to be corroborative material in absence of
substantive material found against the accused. In the
present case, there is no other material against the
petitioners.
Keeping in view the above-said facts and circumstances,
as well as law laid down in the judgments noticed
hereinabove, the present petitions are allowed and the
petitioners are ordered to be released on bail on their
furnishing bail/surety bonds to the satisfaction of the
concerned trial Court/Duty Magistrate and subject to
their not being required in any other case.
(emphasis supplied)
9. This Court in Soni Singh @ Chamkaur Sahib, CRM-M-
31645-2022, decided on 20.10.2022 , has held as under:-
“The Counsel for the petitioner contends that the
petitioner is not named in the FIR nor in the secret
SUKHPREET KAUR
2026.11.13 10:06
I agree to specified
portions of this document

CRM-M-64225-2026 (O & M)
:: 8::
information. He has been named only in the disclosure
statement of his co-accused which is inadmissible in
evidence and even otherwise since the recovery effected
from him of 3 Kgs of Poppy Husk is of non commercial
quantity, therefore the rigors of Section 37 of NDPS Act
did not apply to the petitioner. Since the petitioner was in
custody since 26.05.2022 and the trial was not likely to be
concluded in the near future, he deserved the concession of
bail.
The Counsel for the State on the other hand
contends that the petitioner is a trafficker along with his
co-accused. As per the disclosure statement 200 Kgs of
Poppy Husk was to be supplied to the petitioner. Further
he is involved in two other cases under the NDPS Act as
also one case under the Excise Act and, therefore, did not
deserve the concession of bail in view of his antecedents.
I have heard counsel for both the sides at length.
Admittedly, the petitioner in the present case is
named in the disclosure statement of the arrested accused.
Subsequently thereto 3Kgs of Poppy Husk was recovered
at his instance which is a non commercial quantity. It may
be relevant to mention here that limitations to the grant of
bail under Section 37 of the NDPS Act are in addition to
those prescribed under Cr.PC or any other law inforce on
the grant of bail as has been set out by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in Satpal Singh Vs. State of Punjab 2018(5)
RCR (Criminal) 152. In the present case, the petitioner is
involved in two other cases under the NDPS Act. Thus, as
SUKHPREET KAUR
2026.11.13 10:06
I agree to specified
portions of this document

CRM-M-64225-2026 (O & M)
:: 9::
he is a habitual offender, he is not entitled to the grant of
bail even under Section 439 Cr.PC keeping in view his
antecedents. Even otherwise, assuming that the rigors of
Section 37 of the NDPS Act did not apply to the petitioner,
that by itself would not ipso facto lead to the grant of bail
to the petitioner.
In view of the above discussion, I find no merit in
the present petition and the same is therefore dismissed.
(emphasis supplied)
10. This Court in the case of Ranjit Singh Versus State of Punjab,
CRM-M-25526-2023, decided on 17.07.2023 , has held as under:-
“8. Coming back to the facts of the present case, it is
pertinent to note here that other than the instant FIR in
which the petitioner has been nominated as an accused on
the basis of the disclosure statement of the arrested accused,
the petitioner is also an accused in two other cases under the
NDPS Act. In addition, he had been an accused in three
other cases, though he has been acquitted in the said cases.
It is highly unlikely that the petitioner would have been
implicated in multiple FIRs at the whims and fancies of the
Investigating Agency.
9. When there are multiple FIRs against a person over a
significant period of time (in this case 18 years), then even
though he may have been acquitted in some of those cases,
the twin conditions as envisaged under Section 37 of the
NDPS Act that he has not committed an offence and was not
likely to commit an offence cannot be satisfied.
SUKHPREET KAUR
2026.11.13 10:06
I agree to specified
portions of this document

CRM-M-64225-2026 (O & M)
:: 10::
10. Keeping in view the conduct of the petitioner and his
criminal antecedents, his custodial interrogation would
certainly be necessary to effect necessary recoveries and to
take the investigation to its logical conclusion.
11. In view of the above, I find no merit in the present
petition. Therefore, the same stands dismissed.
(emphasized supplied)
11. In Samarth Kumar (supra) the Hon'ble Supreme Court had
clearly held that an accused who had been named in the disclosure statement
of a co-accused was not entitled to the grant of anticipatory bail but could be
granted regular bail. However, in Vijay Singh (supra) a somewhat contrary
view was taken and the accused therein was granted the concession of
anticipatory bail even though he had been an accused in another case under
the NDPS Act in which he was on bail. In Vikrant Singh (supra) this Court
held that where an accused had been named in the disclosure statement of his
co-accused and there were CDRs/WhatsApp calls/chats between the arrested
accused and the person named in a disclosure statement then in the absence of
the contents of the conversation/chats bail could not be denied to the said
accused. In Soni Singh @ Chamkaur Sahib (supra) and Ranjit Singh
(supra) it has been held by this Court that where there were multiple FIRs
against an accused over a period of time then, even though he had been
named in a disclosure statement, he was not entitled to the concession of bail.
SUKHPREET KAUR
2026.11.13 10:06
I agree to specified
portions of this document

CRM-M-64225-2026 (O & M)
:: 11::
12. Coming back to the facts of the present case, it is relevant to
mention here that other than the present FIR in which the petitioner has been
nominated as an accused on the basis of the disclosure statement of the
arrested accused, the petitioner is also an accused in 03 other cases under the
NDPS Act. The details thereof are as under:-
Sr. FIR No. Under Sections Police Station Status
No.
1. 663/2025 21/29-61-85 of the Thanesar, Under Trial
NDPS Act Kurukshetra
2. 47/2026 21/29-61-85 of the Parao, Ambala Under Trial
NDPS Act
3. 220/2025 21/29-61-85 of the Mahesh Nagar, Under Trial
NDPS Act Ambala
13. In view of the above, it is highly unlikely that the petitioner
would have been implicated in multiple FIRs at the whims and fancies of the
Investigating Agency.
14. In fact, when there are multiple FIRs against an accused over a
significant period of time, then the twin conditions as envisaged under
Section 37 of the NDPS Act that he had not committed an offence and was
not likely to commit an offence cannot be satisfied. Further, the limitation to
grant of bail under Section 37 of the NDPS Act are in addition to those
prescribed under the Cr.P.C. or any other law in force on the grant of bail.
Thus, a habitual offender is not entitled to the grant of bail even under the
provisions of the Cr.P.C. keeping in view his criminal antecedents. On the
SUKHPREET KAUR
2026.11.13 10:06
I agree to specified
portions of this document

CRM-M-64225-2026 (O & M)
:: 12::
contrary, in such case, where anticipatory bail is sought the custodial
interrogation is certainly necessary even though the accused may have joined
investigation at an earlier stage.
15. The custodial interrogation of the petitioner is necessary to verify
his alleged involvement in the supply of the heroin to co-accused/Amit
Kumar, to ascertain the source and the origin of the contraband and to take
the investigation to its logical conclusion.
16. In view of the above, I find no merit in the present petition.
Therefore, the same stands dismissed.
17. The pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of
accordingly.
(JASJIT SINGH BEDI)
JUDGE

12.11.2026
sukhpreet
Whether speaking/reasoned:- Yes/No
Whether reportable:- Yes/No
SUKHPREET KAUR
2026.11.13 10:06
I agree to specified
portions of this document