P&H HC Denies Second Anticipatory Bail To Man Who Twice Failed To Join Probe In Case Involving 15.85g Heroin Recovery

The petitioner sought anticipatory bail under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, in an FIR registered under Section 21 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, with Section 29 added later.

The case concerned recovery of 15.85 grams of heroin; the petitioner, who was not named in the FIR, was implicated on the basis of a co-accused’s disclosure statement.

His earlier anticipatory-bail petition had been dismissed as withdrawn.

Although granted interim protection and directed twice to join the investigation, he did not do so; he attributed this to his wife’s pregnancy and the foetus’s serious congenital conditions, as well as his alleged implication in another FIR.

The State opposed relief, citing the petitioner’s failure to join the investigation and the need for custodial interrogation.

Section 482 of the BNSS governed the application for anticipatory bail, while Sections 21 and 29 of the NDPS Act formed the basis of the alleged offences.

Relying on Bhisham Singh v. State of Haryana, 2024(3) RCR (Criminal) 65, the Court noted that a successive anticipatory-bail petition is maintainable, but to succeed the applicant must show a substantial change in circumstances; a grant of relief must be supported by cogent reasons.

The Court also applied State v. Anil Sharma, (1997) 7 SCC 187, for the principle that custodial interrogation may be more effective than questioning an accused protected by pre-arrest bail.

The Court found that the petitioner had not joined the investigation despite two directions and had previously received an opportunity to do so under interim protection.

It considered this conduct relevant to the State’s apprehension that he might evade the process or hamper the investigation.

The Court also found no substantial change in circumstances since the earlier petition was withdrawn; the grounds advanced did not justify entertaining a renewed request for the same relief.

The claims of false implication and the asserted inadequacy of the co-accused’s disclosure statement were treated as matters for evidentiary assessment, not determinative at the anticipatory-bail stage.

In light of the allegations, the petitioner’s conduct, and the need for effective investigation, the Court concluded that custodial interrogation was warranted.

The petition was dismissed; the Court clarified that its observations would not affect the merits of the case or investigation.