Ramesh v. State Of Haryana

CRM-M No.3301 of 2026 -1IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH ***** CRM-M No.3301 of 2026 Date of decision : 4.5.2026 Date of uploading : 5.5.2026 Ramesh .............Petitioner

Versus

State of Haryana .......Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL Present: Mr. Mohit Pilania, Advocate, for Mr. Raman Chawla, Advocate, for the petitioner Ms. Priyanka Sadar, Senior DAG, Haryana --- SUMEET GOEL, J. (ORAL) 1.

On 26.2.2026, the following order was passed: 'Instant petition has been filed under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 seeking anticipatory bail in case FIR No.733 dated 10.11.2025 registered under Sections 21(b), 21(B), 27-A of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 at Police Station HTM Hisar, District Hisar.

Learned counsel for the petitioner inter alia submits that the petitioner is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case on the basis of disclosure statement of co-accused, namely, Seema @ Kali, who happens to be wife of the petitioner. He further submits that disclosure statement has no evedentiary value in the eyes of law. He has placed reliance upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Tofan Singh v. State of Tamil Nadu, (2021) 4 SCC 1. He further submits that wife of the petitioner, co-accused, has already been granted regular bail by the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track, Special Court, NDPS Act, Hisar, vide order dated 18.12.2025 (Annexure P-4). He further

CRM-M No.3301 of 2026 -2submits that apart from the disclosure statement there is no corroborative evidence to involve the petitioner in the present case. He further submits that the petitioner is involved in two other cases i.e. FIR No.474 dated 12.07.2024 registered under Section 21(a) of the NDPS Act and FIR No.185 dated 17.03.2020 registered under Section 21 of the NDPS Act at Police Station HTM, Hisar, in which he is on bail. He further submits that in those cases also the petitioner has been involved on the basis of disclosure statement of the co-accused. He further submits that 5.760 grams of heroin, which is marginally higher than the small quantity, has been recovered frrom co-accused-wife of the petitioner. He further submits that the petitioner is ready and willing to join the investigation. Per contra, learned State counsel has opposed the prayer for grant of bail. Adjourned to 28.4.2026.

In the meanwhile, arrest of the petitioner shall remain stayed. He shall join the investigation and co-operate with the investigating agency and shall not leave the country without prior permission of the Court.' 2.

Learned State counsel (on instructions) submits that pursuant to the order dated 26.2.2026, the petitioner has joined investigation and is no longer required for custodial interrogation.

3.

In view of the stance of the State, especially the factum of the petitioner having joined investigation and he being arrayed as an accused on the basis of disclosure statement, this Court is inclined to confirm the order dated 26.2.2026, in light of the dicta of the judgment passed by this Court in CRM-M-54032-2024 'Ashu Vs. State of Punjab' and recent judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court passed in 'Jugraj Singh Vs. State of Punjab' bearing Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No.9190/2025. 4.

In view of the above, the instant petition is allowed. The interim order dated 26.2.2026, passed by this Court is made absolute, subject to the conditions as enumerated under Section 482(2) of BNSS.

CRM-M No.3301 of 2026 -35. This order should not be treated as "blanket" order. It will not be read granting petitioner indefinite protection from arrest. It shall be confined to the FIR mentioned ibid and will not operate in respect of any other incident that involves commission of an offence. 6.

Liberty is reserved in favour of State/complainant to move for cancellation/recall of this order in case the petitioner violates any condition stipulated under Section 482(2) of BNSS or upon showing any other sufficient cause.

7.

Needless to say that anything observed herein above shall not be construed to be an opinion on the merits of the case. (SUMEET GOEL) JUDGE 4.5.2026 Ashwanii Whether speaking/reasoned:

Yes/No Whether reportable:

Yes/No