AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Present 2nd petition has been filed under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short ‘BNSS’) (erstwhile Section 438 Cr. P.C.) for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner, in case bearing FIR No.0273 dated 19.06.2026, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 21(b) & 25 of the NDPS Act, 1985 (Section 29 of the NDPS Act added later on), at Police Station Tosham, District Bhiwani.
The first plea for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner was dismissed as withdrawn, vide order dated 16.07.2026 passed by this Court, with liberty to file afresh, on the same cause of action, after disclosing complete antecedents of the petitioner, subject to deposit of costs of ₹5,000/-; the said costs has concededly been deposited by the petitioner.
The FIR in question pertains to recovery of 60.73 grams of smack (Heroin).
Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the petitioner has been falsely implicated into the FIR in question. Learned counsel has argued that the petitioner has not been named in the FIR in question. Learned counsel has further argued that the petitioner has been implicated solely on the basis of the disclosure statement of a co-accused, which is per se not admissible in law, and, thus, the same cannot be the basis for implication of the petitioner. Learned counsel has further argued that there is not even an iota of evidence, available with the prosecution, to show complicity of the petitioner in the offence in question.
Learned counsel has argued that nothing is to be recovered from the petitioner. Learned counsel has further iterated that the petitioner is ready and willing to join investigation. On the basis of the aforementioned submissions, grant of the instant petition is prayed for.
Learned State counsel has filed reply by way of an affidavit dated 24.08.2026, in Court today, which is taken on record. It has been stated, in the said reply, as under:
“11.The role of present petitioner:- The name of the present petitioner came to light in disclosure statement of accused Rohit Kukreja.The present petitioner sold contraband heroine to accused Rohit Kukreja. Accused Rohit Kukreja was using his mobile number 8708963591 in bank account number 144401000012219 of his mother Usha wife of Sanjay for UPI transactions and through this he sent Rs. 30,000/- in Bank account of present petitioner for purchasing heroine and sent Rs. 37,000/- in bank account of Preeti (wife of present petitioner). The present petitioner also gave cash of Rs. 80,000/- to present petitioner. The custodial interrogation of the present petitioner is necessary to trace the source, supply chain, other associates involved in present crime and for recovery of amount which the present petitioner received from accused Rohit Kukreja in lieu of contraband heroine. It is submitted that present petitioner will not co-operate in investigation and will influence material witnesses of the case. It is further submitted that by granting relief of anticipatory bail to present petitioner may send wrong message in society and the present petitioner will commit similar crimes related to narcotic substances.”
Raising submissions in tandem with the said reply, learned State counsel has opposed the grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner by arguing that allegations raised against the petitioner are serious in nature. Learned State counsel has, thus, argued that the petitioner has been specifically named in the disclosure statement of the co-accused to the effect that the petitioner had supplied the contraband in question to the co-accused and the petitioner had received money in his account.Learned State counsel has further argued that investigation in the present case is still under way and the petitioner is yet to be arrested. The petitioner does not bear clean antecedents. Given these circumstances, custodial interrogation of the petitioner is indispensable. Learned State counsel submits that in case the petitioner is accorded concession of anticipatory bail, there is all likelihood that he may abscond from the process of justice as also influence the prosecution witnesses. Thus, the present petition is devoid of merit and is liable to be dismissed.
I have heard the learned counsel for the rival parties and have gone through the available record of the case.
As per the prosecution case, serious allegations have been leveled against the petitioner. The prosecution case, prima facie, reveals that co-accused of the petitioner was apprehended and contraband in question was recovered from him. Perusal of the prosecution case further reveals that name of the petitioner surfaced during the course of investigation on the basis of the disclosure statement of said co-accused, who had allegedly purchased the contraband in question from the petitioner and, in lieu thereof, the petitioner had allegedly received money in his account. Thus, the material available on record and investigation conducted so far, prima facie, establish the complicity of the petitioner in the offence in question.
That apart, the petitioner himself has admitted in the averments made in the present petition that he is involved in one more case under NDPS Act. The aforesaid criminal antecedent(s) reveal that the petitioner is a habitual offender with a tendency to indulge in criminal activities. Such antecedent(s) cannot be brushed aside as a mere coincidence and is a relevant consideration while adjudicating the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail. The criminal antecedent(s) of the petitioner also raise a reasonable apprehension that, if enlarged on bail, he may indulge in similar criminal activities, misuse the concession of bail, or interfere with the fair course of justice. The possibility of his absconding or influencing prosecution witnesses also cannot be ruled out.
No cause nay plausible cause has been shown, at this stage, from which it can be deciphered that the petitioner has been falsely implicated into the present FIR.
It is befitting to mention here that while considering plea for grant of anticipatory bail, the Court has to equilibrate between safeguarding individual rights and protecting societal interest(s). The Court ought to reckon with the magnitude and nature of the offence; the role attributed to the accused; the need for fair and free investigation as also the deeper and wider impact of such alleged iniquities on the society. At this stage, there is no material on record to hold that prima facie case is not made out against the petitioner. The material which has come on record and preliminary investigation appear to establish reasonable basis for the accusations. Thus, it is not appropriate to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner, as it would necessarily cause impediment in effective investigation. A profitable reference in this regard is being made to the dicta passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court titled as State v. Anil Sharma, (1997) 7 SCC 187 : 1997 SCC (Cri) 1039, the Supreme Court held as under, relevant whereof reads as under:
“6.We find force in the submission of CBI that custodial interrogation is qualitatively more elicitation-oriented than questioning a suspect who is well-ensconced with a favourable order under Section 438 of the Code. In a case like this, effective interrogation of a suspected person is of tremendous advantage in disinterring many useful informations and also materials which would have been concealed. Success in such interrogation would elude if the suspected person knows that he is well protected and insulated by a pre-arrest bail order during the time he is interrogated. Very often interrogation in such a condition would reduce to a mere ritual. The argument that the custodial interrogation is fraught with the danger of the person being subjected to third-degree methods need not be countenanced, for, such an argument can be advanced by all accused in all criminal cases. The Court has to presume that responsible police officers would conduct themselves in a responsible manner and that those entrusted with the task of disinterring offences would not conduct themselves as offenders.”
Accordingly, this Court is of the considered opinion that the petitioner does not deserve the concession of anticipatory bail in the factual milieu of the case in hand. Moreover, custodial interrogation of the petitioner is necessary for an effective investigation & to unravel the truth. The petition is, thus, devoid of merits and is hereby dismissed.
Nothing said hereinabove shall be deemed to be an expression of opinion upon merits of the case/investigation.
Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed off.