Pooja vs State of Haryana

Present petition has been filed on behalf of the petitioner seeking grant of anticipatory/pre-arrest bail under Section 482 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (hereinafter to be referred as ‘BNSS’) in FIR No.202 dated 12.07.2026 registered for offences punishable under Sections 21(b) and 27-A of the NDPS Act at Police Station City, Tohana, District Fatehabad, Haryana.

The gravamen of the prosecution case is that on 12.07.2026, a police party headed by SI Om Parkash was on patrol and crime detection duty in the Industrial Area, Tohana, when co-accused Manjeet Singh was apprehended on suspicion. On being searched in accordance with the procedure prescribed under the NDPS Act, heroin contained in a transparent polythene pouch was recovered from the pocket of the shorts/capri worn by him. The recovered substance was weighed and found to be 08 grams 77 milligrams. The recovery was duly converted into a sealed parcel and taken into police possession.

During the course of investigation, co-accused Manjeet Singh allegedly disclosed his involvement in the offence and stated that the recovered contraband had been purchased by him from Pooja (petitioner herein). On the basis of the material collected during investigation, the petitioner has been attributed the role of supplier of the contraband recovered from Manjeet Singh.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has iterated that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case solely on the basis of the disclosure statement made by co-accused Manjeet Singh while in custody, which is inadmissible in evidence. Learned counsel has further iterated that no recovery, either of any narcotic substance or other incriminating material, has been effected from the petitioner. Furthermore, there is no independent corroborative evidence/material such as money trial, bank transaction or other material linking the petitioner to the alleged offence and her name does not find mention in the FIR. The only basis for implicating the petitioner is the unsubstantiated disclosure statement of the co-accused. It has been further contended that the quantity recovered from co-accused Manjeet Singh is non-commercial in nature and the petitioner herself was not found to be in possession of any narcotic substance. Furthermore, the rigours of Section 37 of the NDPS Act cannot mechanically be applied to the petitioner merely because the FIR contains an allegation under Section 27-A of the NDPS Act. It has been further contended that nothing is to be recovered from the possession of the petitioner and thus, her custodial interrogation is not warranted in the factual milieu of the case in hand. Moreover, petitioner has no intention of evading the process of law; undertakes to join the investigation as also cooperate with the investigation in case she is enlarged on bail. On the basis of these submissions, the grant of anticipatory bail is entreated for.

In oppugnation, learned State counsel (on the strength of advance notice) has opposed the grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner by arguing that the allegations raised against the petitioner are serious in nature. According to learned State counsel, the petitioner is actively involved in the illicit trade of narcotic substances and has an active role in the supply of the contraband in question. Referring to reply dated 17.08.2026 by way of an affidavit of Jai Bhagwan, HPS, Deputy Superintendent of Police, Tohana, District Fatehabad (Haryana), learned State counsel has iterated that the Call Detail Records (CDRs) of the petitioner reveal that she was in regular contact with co-accused Manjeet Singh. The relevant part of the said reply reads thus:

Raising submissions in tandem with the aforesaid reply, learned State counsel has contended that the custodial interrogation of the petitioner is required for effective and complete investigation of the instant case as also for unearthing the complete supply chain of the narcotic substances. According to learned State counsel, the grant of bail to the petitioner, at this stage, may seriously hamper the ongoing investigation and embolden the petitioner to tamper with evidence or influence key witnesses many of whom may be susceptible to pressure or intimidation. Given the gravity of the offence, the larger public interest involved in curbing the menace of drug trafficking and the potential threat to the fair conduct of the investigation/trial, learned State counsel has submitted that the petitioner does not deserve the concession of anticipatory bail. Accordingly, a prayer has been made for the dismissal of the petition in hand.

I have heard the learned counsel for the rival parties and have gone through the available record of the case.

As per the case put forth in the FIR in question, indubitably, serious allegations have been levelled against the petitioner. It emerges from the record that on the alleged day of occurrence, acting on credible secret information, co-accused Manjeet Singh was apprehended by the police and recovery of 08 grams 77 milligrams heroin was effected from his possession. During the course of investigation, co-accused Manjeet Singh suffered disclosure statement regarding his involvement in the offence and disclosed that the contraband was purchased from the petitioner (herein). At this stage, the alleged involvement of the petitioner is founded principally on the disclosure statements of co-accused coupled with the fact that the investigating agency has also gathered corroborative documentary evidence to substantiate the case of the prosecution. The specific allegation against the petitioner is that she was the supplier/source of the narcotic substance recovered from the co-accused. Furthermore, the Call Detail Records (CDRs) of the petitioner reveal repeated communication with co-accused Manjeet Singh which, according to the investigating agency, substantiates the association between the petitioner and the co-accused, thereby lending prima facie credence to the allegation of the involvement of the petitioner. Therefore, at this stage, the prosecution case is not based merely upon the disclosure statement of the co-accused but is supported by material which requires verification during investigation/trial.

The petitioner has been implicated for the commission of offences punishable under Section 27-A of the NDPS Act with specific allegations of facilitating the illicit trafficking of contraband substance(s). Furthermore, as per the prosecution, the petitioner played a pivotal role in the supply chain, having allegedly supplied the recovered contraband to co-accused Manjeet Singh. The investigation so far indicates the involvement of the petitioner in a well-organized network, engaged in the illegal distribution of psychotropic substances. In the considered opinion of this Court, the nature and gravity of the offence, coupled with the evidentiary material on record justify custodial interrogation to unravel the larger conspiracy and identify the other potential co-conspirators.

The possibility of the petitioner being part of a larger nexus engaged in the unlawful trade of narcotic substances raises serious concerns that cannot be brushed aside at this nascent stage of the investigation. The apprehension expressed by the prosecution that the petitioner, if released on bail, may abscond or attempt to influence witnesses who may be vulnerable to coercion does not appear to be without basis. Given the seriousness of the offence, the stage of investigation, the possibility of tampering with evidence or obstructing justice, and the overarching public interest in deterring the menace of narcotic drug trafficking, this Court is of the view that the petitioner does not merit the concession of bail at this juncture. Moreover, in view of the serious allegations, the custodial interrogation of the petitioner may be indispensable and crucial for unearthing the broader conspiracy and identifying the other potential accomplices that may be within the exclusive knowledge of the petitioner. Moreover, the grant of anticipatory bail at this premature stage may seriously prejudice the ongoing investigation and potentially result in tampering with evidence or influencing material witnesses.

It is befitting to mention here that while considering a 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 for reaching impact of such alleged iniquities on society. 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:

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 a reasonable basis for the accusation of the petitioner. Thus, it is not appropriate to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner, as it would necessarily cause impediment in effective investigation.

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 may be 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.