Anticipatory bail denied where criminal antecedents and disclosure-based allegations necessitate custodial interrogation in an NDPS investigation.

On 24 August 2026, co-accused Amarpal Singh @ Chima and Kulwinder Singh @ Kulari were apprehended, allegedly in possession of 6.84 grams of heroin, in the presence of the ETO, Fatehabad.

During investigation, they allegedly disclosed that the contraband had been procured from petitioner Jaswant Singh, who had not been arrested.

Section 27-A of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (“NDPS Act”) was subsequently added to FIR No. 336 dated 25 August 2026, registered at Police Station Sadar Fatehabad under Sections 21-B and 27-A of the NDPS Act.

The petitioner sought anticipatory bail under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (“BNSS”), corresponding to Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, contending that he had been implicated solely on the disclosure statements of co-accused, that no contraband had been recovered from him, and that the recovered quantity was below commercial quantity.

The State opposed the petition, relying, inter alia, on the petitioner’s four previous convictions under the NDPS Act and the need for custodial interrogation.

Whether the petitioner was entitled to the extraordinary relief of anticipatory bail under Section 482 of the BNSS in connection with an FIR alleging offences under Sections 21-B and 27-A of the NDPS Act.

Whether the disclosure statements of the co-accused and the petitioner’s criminal antecedents constituted sufficient grounds at the investigation stage for custodial interrogation and refusal of anticipatory bail.

Whether the petitioner’s contention regarding the inadmissibility or limited evidentiary value of the co-accused’s disclosure statement under Section 23 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 (“BSA”) warranted grant of anticipatory bail.

The Court applied Section 482 of the BNSS, corresponding to Section 438 Cr.P.C., governing anticipatory bail and treating it as an extraordinary discretionary relief.

It considered the allegations under Sections 21-B and 27-A of the NDPS Act and the investigative significance of tracing the source and supply chain of narcotic substances.

Although the petitioner relied on the non-commercial quantity of the alleged recovery and the consequent inapplicability of the rigours of Section 37 of the NDPS Act, the Court focused on the need for effective investigation and custodial interrogation.

The Court further held that the admissibility and evidentiary value of a co-accused’s disclosure statement under Section 23 of the BSA were matters for trial; at the investigation stage, such material could be considered for assessing the necessity of custodial interrogation, without treating it as substantive proof of guilt.

The Court noted that 6.84 grams of heroin had allegedly been recovered from the co-accused, who attributed its procurement to the petitioner during investigation.

This allegation, together with the petitioner’s four previous convictions under the NDPS Act, justified further investigation into the source of the contraband, its procurement and supply chain, and the possible involvement of other persons.

The Court declined to determine the ultimate admissibility or probative value of the disclosure statements at the bail stage, holding that those questions belonged to the trial.

For present purposes, the statements and other investigative material could be considered in deciding whether custodial interrogation was necessary.

In view of the petitioner’s antecedents and the stated investigative requirements, the Court found no sufficient ground to grant anticipatory bail, notwithstanding the petitioner’s arguments concerning the absence of recovery from him and the quantity allegedly recovered.

The Court expressly refrained from commenting on the merits of the case.

All pending miscellaneous applications, if any, were also disposed of as consequentially infructuous.