Anjali vs The State of Haryana

MANISHA BATRA, J. (Oral)

The present petition has been filed by the petitioner under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short ‘BNSS’) seeking anticipatory bail in the FIR mentioned below:-

Brief facts of the case relevant for the disposal of the present petition are that on 09.04.2026, on the basis of a secret information, co-accused Hari Ram, while coming in a motorcycle bearing registration number HR01AV-5326, was apprehended by a police party and recovery of 12 grams of heroin wrapped in transparent polythene was effected from him. Upon interrogation, co-accused Hari Ram disclosed that the recovered contraband was purchased by him from accused Ricky. Accused Ricky was arrested and suffered disclosure statement and disclosed the name of the petitioner. As such, the petitioner was nominated as accused. Apprehending her arrest, the petitioner had moved an application for grant of anticipatory bail before the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ambala but the same had been dismissed, vide order dated 03.08.2026.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case. She has been involved in this case on the basis of the disclosure statement made by the co-accused Ricky, which is not admissible in evidence. There is nothing on record to connect the petitioner with the subject crime. No recovery has been effected from her. The co-accused Hari Ram and Ricky have been extended the benefit of regular bail. She is ready to join the investigation. No useful purpose would be served by detaining her in custody. Therefore, it is urged that the petition deserves to be allowed.

Notice of motion.

Mr. Ashok Kumar Khubbar, Addl. AG, Haryana has advance notice of the petition and is ready to argue the matter. He has argued that though the petitioner has been nominated in this case on the basis of the disclosure suffered by the co-accused but during the course of investigation, her complicity in the subject crime has been duly established. The petitioner has criminal antecedents as one more case under the provisions of NDPS Act has been registered against her. Her custodial interrogation is must for proper investigation in the matter. No exceptional and extraordinary circumstance for grant of bail is made out in her favour. It is, thus, argued that the petition is liable to be dismissed.

I have heard learned counsel for the parties at considerable length and have also perused the material placed on record.

The case of the prosecution is that the name of the petitioner was disclosed by the co-accused Ricky whose name was disclosed by co-accused Hari Ram, from whom recovery of contraband has been effected. The petitioner is shown to be involved in one more case under the provisions of NDPS Act. The allegations against the petitioner are serious in nature. For conducting thorough and proper investigation in the matter, her custodial interrogation is must. In case, the same is denied to the investigation agency, that shall leave many glaring loopholes and gaps, adversely affecting the investigation. The Court has also to see that an order of anticipatory bail should not operate as an inroad in the normal legal procedure of criminal cases by the trial Court. The powers of anticipatory bail are extraordinary and the same are to be exercised sparingly in exceptional circumstances. In the present case, no such exceptional circumstances warranting exercise of the powers for grant of anticipatory bail by this Court are existing. As such, this Court is of the considered opinion that the petition does not deserve to be allowed. Accordingly, the same is dismissed.

It is, however, clarified that observations made hereinabove shall not be construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case.