Harpreet Singh v. State Of Haryana

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH DECIDED ON: 25.03.2026 HARPREET SINGH .....PETITIONER

VERSUS

STATE OF HARYANA .....RESPONDENT

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY VASHISTH.

Present:

Mr. J.S. Dhaliwal, Advocate, for the petitioner.

Mr. Parveen Kumar Aggarwal, Addl. AG, Haryana. SANJAY VASHISTH , J (ORAL) 1.

Present petition has been filed by the petitioner, seeking grant of anticipatory bail, in case, FIR No.319, dated 24.06.2025, under Sections 17b/61/85 of NDPS Act, registered at Police Station City Sirsa, District Sirsa.

2.

After hearing the submissions advanced by counsel for the petitioner, on 15.07.2025, following order was passed:- "2.

As per the case of the prosecution, 264 grams of opium was recovered from Manjinder Singh @ Monty, who after arrest and registration of FIR disclosed the name of the petitioner in his disclosure statement . Counsel submits that petitioner has been invovled as supplier of the contraband to co-accused namely, Manjinder Singh @ Monty. There is no other case against the petitioner under the provisions of NDPS Act, though there are some other cases against him. The petitioner is ready and willing to join the investigation and cooperate with the investigating agency, accordingly, he prays for grant of anticipatory bail.

3.

Notice of motion.

On advance notice, Mr. Kanwar Sanjiv Kumar, AAG, Haryana puts in appearance on behalf of the respondent - State. He seeks some time to file reply. 4.

Learned State Counsel is directed to file a status report indicating the evidence connecting the accused to the facts mentioned in the disclosure statement. 5.

List on 09.09.2025.

6.

Till the next date of hearing, arrest of the petitioner shall remain stayed. However, the issue of the petitioner joining the investigation will be examined after considering the reply of the respondent/State."

3.

Counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner is ready to join the investigation and fully cooperate, if protected from arrest by this Court. Thus, counsel prays for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner in the present case.

4.

On the other hand, learned State counsel submits that petitioner is alleged to be the supplier of 300 grams of opium, which he sold to the main accused-Maninder Singh @ Monty, at a consideration of Rs.2,000 per tola.

It is further submitted that the said accused-Maninder Singh @ Monty, suffered a disclosure statement on 25.06.2025, wherein he disclosed the name of present petitioner as supplier of the said quantity of opium. However, a recovery of 264 grams of opium was effected from him.

5.

In order to establish nexus between the petitioner and the main accused, learned State counsel relies upon the Call Detail Records (CDR) and submits that petitioner was in regular contact with Maninder Singh @ Monty, from whom the recovery of opium has been effected. Thus, prayer is made for dismissal of the present petition.

6.

This Court has heard the submissions addressed by learned counsel for the parties and has also perused the record available before it, and is of the considered view that, at this stage, petitioner does not require custodial interrogation.

7.

Accordingly, present petition is allowed and petitioner is directed to join the investigation within two weeks from today, or as and when called by the investigating agency, and in the eventuality of the arrest, petitioner would be released on anticipatory bail, subject to his furnishing bail bonds to the satisfaction of the Arresting Officer. The petitioner shall also be abide by all the conditions laid down under Section 482(2) of BNSS, 2023 (earlier Section 438(2) Cr.P.C.). 8.

Besides, it is directed that petitioner would hand over his passport to the Investigating Agency or to Court concerned, if he possesses. Otherwise, would submit an affidavit, disclosing the fact that he does not possess any passport.

9.

It is also directed that before leaving country any time during trial, petitioner would seek prior permission of the Court. 10.

However, it is clarified that in case, petitioner has failed to join the investigation, prosecution is at liberty to move application for cancellation of the present bail order.

(SANJAY VASHISTH) 25.03.2026 JUDGE Lavisha Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether reportable Yes/No