AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
SUMEET GOEL, J. (ORAL)
Present 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.0182 dated 14.06.2026, registered for the offences punishable under Section 21 of the NDPS Act, 1985, at Police Station Baldev Nagar, Ambala.
The FIR in question pertains to recovery of 22 grams Heroin/ smack.
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 status-cum-compliance report by way of an affidavit dated 19.08.2026, which is already on record. The role ascribed to the petitioner, as per said reply, reads thus:
"7.Role of the Accused-Petitioner: The allegations leveled against the accused-petitioner, Himanshu, are specific and grave in nature. He is not a mere fringe player, but is categorically identified as the 'main supplier' and the very linchpin of the illicit contraband syndicate. His direct involvement was definitively unearthed through the explicit disclosure statement of the co-accused, Vishal @ Shelly, who was apprehended in conscious possession of 22.00 grams of heroin/smack. The co-accused categorically nominated the present petitioner as the primary source who supplied the recovered narcotics.
Given the petitioner's pivotal role in facilitating this organized drug trade, his sustained custodial interrogation is absolutely imperative and highly warranted. A thorough custodial examination is indispensable to unravel the complete modus operandi, trace the backward and forward linkages of the licit supply chain, and determine the ultimate origin from where the petitioner procures the contraband. Furthermore, his custodial questioning is critical for unmasking the identities, whereabouts, and specific roles of all other co-conspirators and hidden entities involved in the commission of this grave crime. The investigation would be severely prejudiced, and the larger drug nexus will remain unexposed, if the petitioner is shielded from deep custodial scrutiny."
Further, in respect of antecedents of the petitioner, it has been stated in Para-5 of the said status-cum-compliance report as under:
"5.That the said specific averment made by the petitioner is incorrect, false and amounts to deliberate suppression of material facts. As per the official record of Police Station Ambala Cantt, the following four (04) other FIRs stand registered against the petitioner Himanshu:
Sr. No. Case/FIR No. & date Under Section Police Station Present Status (i) 343 dated 01.07.2019 379-A and 511 IPC Ambala Cantt Acquitted on 05.02.2020 (ii) 358 dated 31.10.2015 323, 34, 341 and 506 IPC Ambala Cantt Admonished 14.03.2016 (iii) 247 dated 06.06.2020 188 and 269 IPC & 61-1-14 of the Excise Act Ambala Cantt (Pending for 26.09.2026 for PWs). (iv) 83 dated 15.03.2017 323, 427 and 506 IPC Ambala Cantt Released on Probation on 11.04.2018. 6.That the above-mentioned four FIRs clearly establish that the petitioner has criminal antecedents and was involved in other cases prior to the registration of the present FIR No.182 dated 14.06.2026. The petitioner has deliberately suppressed these material facts while making a false specific averment in the petition that he is not involved in any other case."
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 attributing him the role of main supplier. 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 attributed the petitioner the role of 'main supplier' and very linchpin of the illicit contraband syndicate. Thus, the material available on record and investigation conducted so far, prima facie, establish the complicity of the petitioner in the offence in question.
Perusal of the petition in hand shows that the petitioner had deliberately concealed his antecedents. A perusal of the status-cum-compliance report ibid reveals that the petitioner is involved in other FIR(s). 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 keeping in view the seriousness of allegations, role attributed to the petitioner and his deliberate attempt to conceal his antecedents, the petitioner is not entitled to 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.
Since the petitioner has deliberately chosen not to disclose his antecedents in the petition in hand, hence, he is saddled with costs of ₹5,000/- to be deposited with the Punjab & Haryana High Court Employees Welfare Association, Bank; details whereof reads thus:
Account No.37167209613;
IFSC Code: SBIN0050306;
Branch Code: 50306 &
Bank: State Bank of India, High Court Branch, Chandigarh
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.