Husanveer Singh v. State Of Punjab

In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, at Chandigarh Date of Decision: 18.05.2026 Husanveer Singh ... Petitioner(s)

Versus

State of Punjab ... Respondent(s) CORAM: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Surya Partap Singh.

Present:

Ms, Sweedel Goyal, Advocate for Mr. Laghuinder Singh Sekhon, Advocate for the petitioner(s).

Mr. Eklavya Darshi, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab, for the respondent.

Surya Partap Singh, J.

1.

This petition for anticipatory bail is the first petition filed by the petitioner under Section 482 of 'the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023'. It has been filed with regard to a case arising out of FIR No. 06 dated 10.01.2026, for the commission of offence punishable under Section(s) 21 and 29 of 'the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985' and Section(s) 111, 111(2), 113(3) and 152 of 'the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023' and Section(s) 5 of 'the Official Secrets Act, 1923, Police Station Barnala, District Barnala, Punjab.

2.

Vide order dated 28.04.2026, the petitioner was admitted to interim anticipatory bail, subject to the condition of furnishing bonds to the satisfaction of arresting officer. It was also directed that the petitioner shall join the investigation.

3.

The learned State Counsel has filed status report. The same be taken on record.

4.

Heard.

5.

It has been submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that in compliance with order dated 28.04.2026, the petitioner has already joined the investigation, and that nothing has been left to be recovered from the possession of petitioner. In view of above, the learned counsel for the petitioner has requested that the order dated 28.04.2026 be made absolute. 6.

The learned State counsel, on the instructions of 'ASI Jagdeep Singh', has submitted that the petitioner has joined the investigation, but in view of serious allegations against the petitioner, whose name figures in the FIR, his custodial interrogation is required. It has been contended by the learned State counsel that the name of petitioner in the FIR has been mentioned on the basis of secret information, and that the co-accused, namely 'Sarj Singh' had suffered a disclosure statement, wherein he nominated the present petitioner by stating that the petitioner was supplier of the contraband.

7.

The record has been perused carefully.

8.

With regard to fact-situation of this case and the above mentioned arguments, following are the relevant factors which are supposed to be taken into consideration:- i) that the petitioner has already joined the investigation; ii) that the petitioner has clean antecedents;

iii) that the only evidence, collected by the investigating agency against the petitioner is the secret information and

disclosure statement of co-accused of the petitioner, and there is a question mark with regard to credibility & admissibility of above-mentioned statement in evidence, as the same was recorded when the co-accused was in police custody. Since pursuant to above-mentioned disclosure statement recovery of any incriminating material or discovery of fact has not taken place, prima facie the above-mentioned statement appears to be hit by Section-23 of Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam;

iv) that the investigation and trial are not likely to be concluded in near future;

v) that nothing has been left to be recovered from the possession of petitioner;

vi) that the detention of petitioner in judicial lock-up is not likely to serve any purpose;

vii) that custodial interrogation of the petitioner is not likely to produce a fruitful result;

viii) that there is nothing on record to show that while on anticipatory bail, the petitioner is likely to tamper with the evidence or influence the witnesses; and ix) that there is nothing on record to show that while on anticipatory bail, the petitioner will not participate/cooperate in the investigation.

9.

Keeping in view the aforesaid submissions and the fact that the petitioner has already joined the investigation, it is hereby ordered that the

petitioner is entitled to anticipatory bail. Hence, the present petition is hereby allowed and the order dated 28.04.2026, whereby the petitioner was accorded the benefit of interim anticipatory bail, is hereby made absolute. (Surya Partap Singh) Judge May 18, 2026 "DK"

Whether speaking/reasoned :Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/No