Jabir vs State of Haryana

H.S. Grewal, J.(Oral)

The present petition has been filed under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, seeking grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner in FIR No.63 dated 16.04.2026, registered under Sections 21-C of the NDPS Act, (Sections 29, 61 and 85 of the NDPS Act added later on), at Police Station Nagina, District Nuh.

The case of the prosecution is that on receipt of secret information, co-accused Tafajjul Ahmed alias Kaala was apprehended and 261 grams of heroin was recovered from his possession. During investigation, Tafajjul Ahmed disclosed that the contraband had been supplied to him by co-accused Aleem. Thereafter, Aleem was arrested and, during investigation, disclosed that he had purchased 325 grams of heroin from the present petitioner-Jabir for a consideration of ₹2,50,000/-. The police reply further records that the petitioner is stated to be the main supplier and that investigation regarding his role and the source of supply is still in progress.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was neither named in the FIR nor apprehended from the spot. It is argued that the recovery was effected from co-accused Tafajjul Ahmed and that the petitioner has subsequently been implicated on the basis of disclosure statement of co-accused Aleem. Learned counsel submits that there is no independent material such as any CDR, bank transaction or other link evidence connecting the petitioner with the alleged offence. It is further submitted that nothing is to be recovered from the petitioner and that his custodial interrogation is not required.

Notice of motion.

On the asking of the Court, Mr. Rakesh Kumar Jangra, AAG, Haryana accepts notice on behalf of the respondent-State and opposes the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail. It is submitted that the quantity of heroin recovered in the present case is commercial in nature and that the investigation qua the petitioner is still in progress. It is further submitted that an amount of ₹2,50,000/- is stated to be payable to the petitioner in connection with the transaction and that the source of supply is also required to be investigated. Learned State counsel further points out that the petitioner is involved in two other cases under the NDPS Act, i.e. FIR No.494 of 2023 under Sections 21-B, 61 and 85 of the NDPS Act, Police Station Sadar Tauru, District Nuh, and FIR No.760 of 2024 under Sections 29, 61 and 85 of the NDPS Act, Police Station Sector-58, Faridabad.

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have perused the paper-book.

At this stage, this Court is not required to undertake a detailed examination of the merits of the prosecution case. However, the material collected during investigation cannot be ignored while considering the prayer for anticipatory bail. In the present case, the petitioner has not merely been implicated on the disclosure statement of the person from whom the recovery was effected. The investigation discloses a successive chain in which Tafajjul Ahmed stated that the heroin had been supplied to him by Aleem, and Aleem, in turn, disclosed that he had purchased 325 grams of heroin from the present petitioner for ₹2,50,000/-. The police also claims that the petitioner is required to be interrogated with regard to the source of supply and the money transaction. Another circumstance which weighs against the petitioner is his criminal antecedents. As noticed above, two other FIRs under the NDPS Act are stated to be pending against him. The fact of his involvement in those cases is also recorded in the police reply. The present case involves recovery of commercial quantity of heroin from the co-accused and the investigation regarding the alleged source and supply chain is still underway.

Keeping in view the nature of allegations, the commercial quantity involved, the material collected during investigation, the requirement of further investigation regarding the source of supply and the criminal antecedents of the petitioner, no ground for extending the concession of anticipatory bail is made out.

Consequently, the present petition is dismissed.

Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of.