Ravi vs State of Haryana

Prayer in the present petition, filed under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short, ‘BNSS’), is for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner in FIR No.187 dated 21.05.2026, registered under Section 21 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short, ‘NDPS Act’) at Police Station Ambala City, District Ambala.

Brief facts of the case relevant for disposal of the present petition are that on 21.05.2026, on the basis of secret information, co-accused Jatin @ Janu was apprehended by the police and 8 grams of heroin/smack was recovered from his possession. The name of the present petitioner surfaced as the main supplier of the contraband on the basis of the disclosure statement of co-accused Jatin @ Janu. Apprehending arrest, the petitioner moved an application for grant of anticipatory bail before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track, Special Court for trial of offence under NDPS Act, Ambala, which was dismissed vide order dated 12.08.2026. The petitioner has, thereafter, approached this Court by way of the present petition.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case. His name has surfaced only on the basis of the disclosure statement made by co-accused Jatin @ Janu, which is not admissible in evidence. It is further submitted that nothing is to be recovered from the petitioner and, therefore, his custodial interrogation is not required. The petitioner is apprehending his arrest at the hands of the police and is ready to join the investigation and abide by all the terms and conditions that may be imposed by this Court. It is, thus, urged that the petition deserves to be allowed.

Per contra, learned State counsel has opposed the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail and submitted that the allegations against the petitioner are serious and a specific role has been attributed to him. The petitioner has surfaced as the main supplier of the contraband recovered from co-accused Jatin @ Janu. It is further submitted that during investigation, the call history and WhatsApp conversation between co-accused Jatin @ Janu and the petitioner have been obtained from the Cyber Cell. Learned State counsel has produced before the Court a photocopy of the call history and WhatsApp conversations, which reflects that as many as 60 calls were exchanged between the petitioner and co-accused Jatin @ Janu. It is further submitted that several raids were conducted at the residence of the petitioner, but he evaded his arrest. The investigation is still in progress and custodial interrogation of the petitioner is required for proper investigation of the case and to unearth the source of the contraband. It is, therefore, argued that the petition is liable to be dismissed.

I have heard learned counsel for the parties at considerable length and have also perused the material placed on record.

The allegations against the petitioner are that he was the main supplier of the contraband recovered from co-accused Jatin @ Janu. Though learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the petitioner has been nominated solely on the basis of the disclosure statement made by the co-accused, at this stage, the said plea cannot be considered in isolation from the other material collected during the course of investigation. The photocopy of the call history and WhatsApp conversations produced by learned State counsel indicates frequent communication between co-accused Jatin @ Janu and the petitioner, with as many as 60 calls having been exchanged between them. The said call history and conversations were obtained from the Cyber Cell. The investigation in the matter is still in progress.

The allegations against the petitioner are serious. His custodial interrogation is required for conducting proper investigation into the matter and for unearthing the source of the contraband. It is a settled proposition of law that, while considering an application for grant of anticipatory bail, the Court has to take into consideration the nature of the offence, the role attributed to the accused and the requirement of custodial interrogation for a fair and effective investigation. The powers under Section 482 of BNSS is to be exercised sparingly and in exceptional circumstances.

In the facts and circumstances of the present case, no exceptional circumstance warranting the concession of pre-arrest bail has been made out. The petitioner has already failed to secure anticipatory bail from the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ambala, vide order dated 12.08.2026. Keeping in view the nature of allegations, the material collected during investigation and the requirement of custodial interrogation, no case for grant of anticipatory bail is made out.

Accordingly, finding no merit in the present petition, the same is dismissed.

It is made clear that the observations made hereinabove are only for the purpose of deciding the present petition and the same shall not be construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case.

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