Punjab-Haryana High Court
Pravez vs State Of Punjab on 22 May, 2026
CRM-M-29851-2026 (O&M) 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH.
142 CRM-M-29851-2026 (O&M).
Date of Decision: 22.05.2026.
Pravez ....Petitioner.
VERSUS
State of Punjab ....Respondent.
***
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY VASHISTH
---
Present: Mr. Sumit Dua, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. Vinay Malhotra, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab.
****
SANJAY VASHISTH, J. (Oral)
1. The instant petition has been filed under Section 482 of BNSS, 2023 (earlier Section 438 Cr.P.C.), for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner, who has been booked in a criminal case arising out of First Information Report, as detailed hereunder:-
Name & age FIR Date Section(s) Police District of petitioner No. Station Pravez 180 22.09.2025 22 of NDPS Act Division Jalandhar (29 years) (29 of NDPS Act added No.1 later on)
2. Case of the prosecution is that on 22.09.2025, one Swift car bearing registration No.PB-08-FD-2993, being driven by accused Nitin Sharma, was intercepted and, upon search of the vehicle, 87,000 intoxicant tablets of Tramadol were recovered therefrom. Upon his arrest, accused Nitin Sharma disclosed the names of co-accused Ajay and Amit, pursuant to which JITENDER 2026.05.22 18:42 I attest to the accuracy of this document CRM-M-29851-2026 (O&M) 2 further recovery of 1,12,000 intoxicant tablets of Tramadol was effected from accused Ajay and 24,000 intoxicant tablets of Tramadol was effected from accused Amit. Thereafter, on the basis of a second disclosure statement allegedly suffered by accused Nitin Sharma, co-accused Javed Malik alias Javed Ali and Pravez (present petitioner), were nominated in the present case.
3. Though it is a case where huge quantity of Tramadol tablets/ capsules was recovered by the Investigating Officer, there should not be any Court order discouraging the efforts made by the Investigating Officer in such like cases. Though co-accused Javed Malik alias Javed Ali, who was named along with the petitioner by accused-Nitin Sharma in his disclosure statement, has been granted regular bail by this Court, vide order dated 18.04.2026 (Annexure P-4), but anticipatory bail petition (CRM-M-59892-2025) filed by him was disposed of having been rendered infructuous, vide order dated 18.03.2026 (Annexure P-3), on accoun t of the fact that such accused (Javed Malik alias Javed Ali) had been arrested by the time of hearing.
4. For the reason assigned hereinabove, no ground is made out to extend the concession of anticipatory bail to the petitioner, rather the Court is of the firm opinion that such accused are required to be thoroughly interrogated immediately.
5. Petition stands dismissed.
Pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of accordingly.
(SANJAY VASHISTH)
JUDGE
22.05.2026
jitender
Whether speaking/ reasoned : Yes/ No
Whether Reportable : Yes/ No
JITENDER
2026.05.22 18:42
I attest to the accuracy of
this document