Shatrudhan Kumar Dangi vs State Of Haryana
2025 Latest Caselaw 5746 P&H

Citation : 2025 Latest Caselaw 5746 P&H
Judgement Date : 1 December, 2025

[Cites 8, Cited by 0]

Punjab-Haryana High Court

Shatrudhan Kumar Dangi vs State Of Haryana on 1 December, 2025

CRM-M-54184-2025                 1

216
      IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
                    AT CHANDIGARH

                                        CRM-M-54184-2025
                                        Date of Decision: 01.12.2025

SHATRUDHAN KUMAR DANGI                                    ......... Petitioner

                                     Versus
STATE OF HARYANA                                          ..... Respondent

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE YASHVIR SINGH RATHOR

Present :    Mr. Manav Sharma, Advocate for
             Mr. Partap Singh, Advocate
             for the petitioner.

             Mr. Ramesh Kumar Ambavta, DAG, Haryana.

                   ****

YASHVIR SINGH RATHOR, J. (Oral)

1. Prayer in this petition under Section 482 of Bhartiya Nagarik

Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 is for grant of anticipatory bail in case FIR

No.241 dated 01.08.2025 registered at Police Station Sadar Pehowa,

Kurukshetra under Sections 18, 27-A, 29/61/85 of NDPS Act.

2. Status report by way of an affidavit dated 26.11.2025 of

Nirmal Kumar, HPS, DSP, Pehowa, Kurukshetra filed on behalf of the

respondent-State is taken on record. Registry is directed to tag the same at

an appropriate place.

3. On 25.09.2025 the following order was passed:-

"Prayer in this petition under Section 482 of BNSS, 2023 is for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner in case FIR No.241 dated 01.08.2025 registered at Police Station Sadar Pehowa, Kurukshetra under Sections 18, 27-A, 29/61/85 of NDPS Act.

Notice of motion. Mr. Ramesh Kumar Ambavta, DAG,

1 of 4

Haryana, has appeared and accepts notice on behalf of the State. Both the parties have been heard and material collected by the police during investigation has been perused.

Brief facts of the prosecution case are that on 01.08.2025, on the basis of secret information, one Shamsher Singh @ Shammy was apprehended by the police and 7 kg 900 grams of Opium was recovered from him. On interrogation, co-accused Shamsher Singh @ Shammy disclosed the name of the petitioner-Shatrudhan Kumar Dangi to be the supplier. Apprehending arrest, the petitioner applied for anticipatory bail, which has been dismissed by the trial Court.

Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case. The disclosure statement of co-accused Shamsher Singh @ Shammy, whereby he has been nominated as an accused is inadmissible in evidence and cannot be looked into. There is no other material to connect the petitioner with the alleged offence and disclosure statement alone cannot be made the basis to deny the benefit of anticipatory bail. Learned counsel next contended that petitioner is ready to join the investigation and he will abide by the conditions that may be imposed by the Court and benefit of anticipatory bail be extended in his favour. In support of his contentions, learned counsel has cited the Judgment reported as Law Finder Doc.id# 2687409, 2025:NCPHHC:2121 titled as "Sahil Joshi Vs. State of Punjab" and order dated 20.08.2025 passed by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Criminal Appeal No.3640/2025 @ SLP (Crl) No.9190/2025 titled as 'Jugraj Singh Vs. State of Punjab'. Learned counsel also placed on file the order dated 03.04.2025 passed by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in CRM-M- 18403-2025 in the aforesaid case vide which bail application of aforesaid Jugraj Singh was rejected.

On the other hand, learned State counsel has opposed the prayer and argued that the name of the petitioner has emerged during investigation and disclosure statement of co-

2 of 4

accused Shamsher Singh @ Shammy has pointed towards his role in the present offence indicating his involvement in the illicit drug network and as such, his custodial interrogation is essential to trace the source from where the contraband was arranged and other links of supply and petitioner does not deserve anticipatory bail.

Admittedly, no recovery has been effected from the petitioner and his name has cropped up in the disclosure statement of co-accused Shamsher Singh @ Shammy, from whom the alleged contraband was recovered. At this stage, there is no other material against the petitioner except disclosure statement of co-accused Shamsher Singh @ Shammy. There are no call details between the petitioner and the co-accused to point out towards his involvement. In Jugraj Singh's case (supra), 5kg heroin was recovered along with a sum of Rs.17.50 lakh drug money and main accused had nominated said Jugraj Singh as the supplier and the Hon'ble Supreme Court had ordered his release on anticipatory bail observing that mere disclosure statement is not sufficient to connect him with the alleged offence. As such, it is a fit case wherein benefit of anticipatory bail should be extended.

Adjourned to 26.11.2025 for filing status report. Meanwhile, the petitioner is directed to join the investigation and in the event of his arrest, he shall be admitted to ad- interim bail on furnishing bail bonds to the satisfaction of the Arresting/Investigating Officer, subject to the following conditions as envisaged under Section 482(2) of the BNSS [erstwhile Section 438(2) Cr.P.C.]:-

i) that the petitioner shall make himself available for interrogation by a police officer as and when required;

ii) that the petitioner shall not, directly or indirectly, make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him/her from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer;