Deepak Kumar v. State Of Haryana

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH.

Sr. No.217 Case No. : CRM-M-30330-2025 Decided On : July 08, 2025 Deepak Kumar ....

Petitioner vs.

State of Haryana ....

Respondent CORAM :

HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SUKHVINDER KAUR.

* * * Present :

Mr. Deepak Kumar, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Karan Garg, AAG, Haryana.

* * * SUKHVINDER KAUR , J.

:

Prayer in the present petition, filed under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, is for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner in FIR No.176 dated 08.05.2025, under Sections 21(b) and 27-A of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as - NDPS Act), registered at Police Station City Tohana, District Fatehabad.

The prosecution case, in brief, is that on 08.05.2025, after getting secret information, co-accused Ajay was apprehended by the police party from his house along with 8.06 grams heroin and cash amounting to Rs.5,23,000/-. Accordingly, the case was registered against him. During investigation, the said co-accused Ajay suffered disclosure statement and stated that he had purchased the recovered contraband from Deepak Kumar (present petitioner).

Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the petitioner has been nominated as accused in the present case only on the basis of disclosure statement of the co-accused, which is not admissible in law. Besides the disclosure statement, no other material has been produced on record to connect the petitioner with the alleged offence in the present case. No recovery has been effected from the petitioner and recovery in this case has been effected only from the co-accused namely Ajay. He has further urged that custodial interrogation of the petitioner is not required for any purpose and he be granted concession of anticipatory bail. Notice in this case was issued on 28.05.2025, when the learned State counsel sought time to file Status Report, which has already been placed on record on the last date of hearing.

Learned State counsel has opposed the present bail petition while contending that the petitioner had been indulging in supply of contraband to the co-accused. He is habitual offender and as per the Status Report, four other cases have also been registered against the petitioner, out of which one is under NDPS Act.

In the present case, FIR was registered on the basis of secret information that co-accused Ajay was possessing and selling contraband and thereafter, on conducting raid by the police party, contraband and cash were recovered from said co-accused namely Ajay. Thereafter, co-accused Ajay named the petitioner with the specific allegation that he was receiving supply of contraband from the petitioner. Thus, as per the allegations, the petitioner has been instrumental in regulating the supply and sale of contraband. Though he was not present at the spot, yet as per the

allegations, he had allegedly supplied the contraband, which was recovered from the co-accused. As per the Status Report submitted by learned State Counsel, four more cases had been registered against him, out of which one is pertaining to NDPS Act.

Keeping in view the specific allegations regarding involvement of the petitioner in drug trafficking and his past criminal antecedents, no ground for granting anticipatory bail to the petitioner is made out. Accordingly, the present petition stands dismissed. July 08, 2025 (SUKHVINDER KAUR) monika JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned ?

Yes/No.

Whether reportable ?

Yes/No.