← Library
High Court of Punjab and HaryanaCRM-M/52865/2024dismissed

Saleem v. State Of Haryana

2025-03-06Mrs. Justice Manjari Nehru Kaul2 pages

CRM-M-52865-2024 (O&M)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT

CHANDIGARH CRM-M-52865-2024 (O&M) Date of decision: 06.03.2025 SALEEM

...Petitioner

Versus

STATE OF HARYANA

...Respondent

CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANJARI NEHRU KAUL Present:- Mr. R.S. Bajwa, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Rajat Gautam, Addl. A.G., Haryana.

**** MANJARI NEHRU KAUL, J.

Prayer in this petition filed under Section 482 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, is for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner, in case FIR No.0335 dated 06.09.2024 under Section 20(b)(ii)B of NDPS Act, 1985 (Section 29 of NDPS Act added later on), registered at Police Station City Sohana, District Gurugram. 2.

Learned State counsel, on instructions, has not disputed that the petitioner in compliance of the following order passed by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court on 23.10.2024, has joined investigation : "Learned counsel for the petitioner inter alia submits that allegedly there was recovery of 5 Kgs 170 grams Ganja from the co-accused Rahul Yadav. Learned counsel further submits that the petitioner was not named in the FIR and he has been nominated on the basis of disclosure statement of the co-accused. He further submits that no recovery was effected from the

CRM-M-52865-2024 (O&M) petitioner.

However, it has been asserted that the custodial interrogation of the petitioner is imperative in the present case, in view of the fact that he has previous criminal antecedents; soon after the petitioner was convicted in another case under the NDPS Act in May, 2024, wherein huge recovery of 33 Kgs of Ganja was effected from him., the petitioner, yet again was involved in drug trafficking and nominated as an accused in the present case. It has been further asserted by learned State counsel that custodial interrogation of the petitioner is, therefore, required to trace out the source from where the recovered contraband has been procured by the petitioner, who allegedly then supplied the recovered contraband to co-accused Rahul Yadav.

3.

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the relevant record.

4.

In view of the facts and circumstances as enumerated hereinabove, particularly keeping in view the criminal antecedents of the petitioner, he does not deserve the extra ordinary concession of anticipatory bail.

5.

Dismissed.

6.

However, it is made clear that anything observed here-in-above shall not be construed to be an expression of opinion on the merits of the case.

06.03.2025 (MANJARI NEHRU KAUL) Satyawan JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No Whether Reportable:

Yes/No