P&H HC Grants Regular Bail To Four Accused In Alleged Drug-Police Nexus, Citing Completed Probe And 49 Unexamined Witnesses

The four petitioners sought regular bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, in a case arising from FIR No. 41 dated 26 February 2026, registered under provisions of the NDPS Act and the Prevention of Corruption Act; Section 29 of the NDPS Act was added during investigation.

The case arose from allegations that Arshdeep Singh was apprehended with ₹10,50,000 allegedly intended to obtain heroin, but was subsequently released by SI Balkar Singh; the investigation alleged a wider nexus involving police officials and other persons.

The petitioners relied, among other things, on completion of the investigation, presentation of the challan, the fact that charges had not been framed and none of 49 prosecution witnesses had been examined. They also referred to SI Balkar Singh’s grant of anticipatory bail.

The State opposed bail, citing the seriousness of the allegations and the alleged trafficking nexus.

The petitions were considered under Section 483 of the BNSS, 2023, corresponding to Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, which empowers the High Court to grant bail.

The Court treated the completion of investigation, absence of a demonstrated need for further custodial interrogation, the stage and likely duration of trial, and the circumstances of a co-accused’s bail as relevant considerations.

It clarified that a co-accused’s grant of anticipatory bail does not, by itself, entitle another accused to bail, though it may be considered as a relevant circumstance.

The Court acknowledged the seriousness of the alleged offences and the State’s claim of an organised nexus, but noted that the investigation was complete and the challan had been filed. Charges remained to be framed, and none of the 49 witnesses had been examined, making a near-term conclusion of trial unlikely.

The petitioners were already in custody, and the State had not shown that further custodial interrogation was required; the Court considered continued incarceration unlikely to serve a useful purpose.

SI Balkar Singh’s anticipatory bail did not establish parity as an entitlement, but was relevant because the petitions arose from the same FIR.

The petitioners were directed not to threaten or influence prosecution witnesses, and the Court made clear that its observations were not an opinion on the merits; the trial court was to decide the case independently and expeditiously.