Jaswant Singh vs State Of Haryana

VIRINDER AGGARWAL, J. (Oral)

First petition under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (corresponding to Section 438 Cr.P.C.), seeking grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner in connection with the following FIR:

Particulars Details FIR No. & Date 336 dated 25.08.2026 Sections Sections 21-B and 27-A of the NDPS Act, 1985 Police Station Sadar Fatehabad, District Fatehabad

The present petition seeks the concession of anticipatory bail to the petitioner in the aforesaid FIR (Annexure P-1).

Briefly stated, the prosecution case is that on 24.08.2026, co-accused Amarpal Singh @ Chima and Kulwinder Singh @ Kulari were apprehended and 6 grams 84 milligrams of heroin was recovered in the presence of ETO Fatehabad. During investigation, they allegedly disclosed having procured the contraband from petitioner-Jaswant Singh, who remains to be arrested; Section 27-A of the NDPS Act was subsequently added.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is innocent and has been falsely implicated solely on the basis of the disclosure statements of the co-accused, with no contraband or other incriminating article recovered from his person or premises. It is further contended that the prosecution version suffers from a discrepancy regarding the alleged quantity, varying from 10 grams in the FIR to 6.84 grams in subsequent proceedings, and that the alleged recovery being far below commercial quantity, the rigours of Section 37 of the NDPS Act are not attracted. The petitioner has no flight risk, has not been declared a proclaimed offender, undertakes to join and cooperate with the investigation, and accordingly seeks the concession of anticipatory bail.

Notice of motion.

Upon advance notice, Mr. Tanuj Sharma, Assistant Advocate General, accepts notice on behalf of the State of Haryana and opposes the present petition. It is submitted that the petitioner has antecedents involving conviction in as many as four criminal cases, reflecting a chequered criminal history. It is further contended that the impugned order suffers from neither any illegality nor any material infirmity and has been passed by the Trial Court after due consideration of the factual matrix and applicable legal principles. Dismissal of the present petition has accordingly been prayed for.

Having heard learned counsel for the parties and upon meticulous scrutiny of the paper-book with their able assistance, this Court finds that 6.84 grams of heroin was allegedly recovered from co-accused, who, during investigation, made a disclosure statement attributing procurement of the said contraband to the petitioner. The said circumstance, coupled with the other material collected during investigation, warrants due consideration at this stage while examining the petitioner’s prayer for the extraordinary concession of anticipatory bail.

The antecedents of the petitioner are of considerable significance. As per record, the petitioner is a previous convict in four cases under the NDPS Act. His alleged involvement in the present case, when viewed against such antecedents, raises a legitimate investigative requirement to ascertain the source of the contraband, the chain of its procurement and supply, and the role of other persons, if any, associated with the alleged trafficking. The menace of narcotic drugs has assumed serious social and criminal dimensions in the State of Punjab and, therefore, the problem has to be tackled “head on” through an effective and comprehensive investigation, particularly for identifying the source and dismantling the network facilitating the illicit circulation of contraband.

The contention of learned counsel for the petitioner that, in view of Section 23 of the BSA, 2023, the disclosure statement does not carry evidentiary value, cannot be determinative at the present stage. The question of its admissibility and evidentiary worth is appropriately left for consideration at the stage of trial. At the stage of investigation, the material collected by the investigating agency may legitimately be taken into account for assessing the necessity and efficacy of custodial interrogation, without treating such material as substantive proof of guilt. In the present factual matrix, the petitioner’s antecedents, the allegation regarding procurement of the contraband from him, and the necessity of tracing the source and wider network constitute sufficient justification for custodial interrogation.

Accordingly, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, this Court finds no ground to extend the extraordinary concession of anticipatory bail to the petitioner. The present petition is, consequently, dismissed.

In view of the final adjudication of the principal matter, all pending miscellaneous applications, if any, arising out of or ancillary to the present proceedings shall also stand disposed of accordingly. No separate or further orders are called for in respect of such applications, the same having been rendered infructuous in consequence of the present adjudication.