Punjab-Haryana High Court
Roshan vs State Of Punjab on 27 November, 2025
CRM-
CRM-M-59934-
59934-2025
1
215
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
CRM-
CRM-M-59934-
59934-2025
Roshan
....Petitioner
versus
State of Punjab
....Respondent
Date of decision: November 27,
27, 2025
Date of Uploading: November 27, 2025
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL
Present:
Present Mr. Rahul Paul, Advocate for
Mr. Yajur Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. Jaypreet Singh, DAG Punjab.
*****
SUMEET GOEL,
GOEL, J. (ORAL)
Present petition has been filed under Section 482 of the
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short 'BNSS') for grant of
concession of anticipatory bail to the petitioner in case FIR No.35 dated
25.04.2025, registered for offences
offences punishable under Sections 21 & 29-61--
85 of NDPS Act,
Act 1985, at Police Station Garhdiwal District Hoshiarpur
Hoshiarpur.
2. On 28.10.2025, the following order was passed:
"Apprehending his arrest in FIR No.35 dated 25.04.2025
registered for offences punishable under Sections 21, 29, 61 and 85 of
NDPS Act, at Police Station Garhdiwal, District Hoshiarpur; the petitioner
has preferred this petition under Section 482 of Bharatiya Nagarik
Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 seeking pre-arrest
arrest bail.
Counsel for the petitioner, inter alia, contends that the petitioner is
sought to be implicated into the FIR in question solely on the basis of a
disclosure statement made by co-accused
accused from whom the contraband in
question has been allegedly recovered & the petitioner is willing to join
investigation andd cooperate therein. In order to buttress his arguments,
learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the dicta of the
1 of 3
CRM-
CRM-M-59934-
59934-2025
judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in 'Vijay Singh versus The State
of Haryana' bearing Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No(s).12No(s).1266/2023
66/2023,
'State by (NCB) Bengaluru vs. Pallulabid Ahmad Arimutta & Anr'
2022(1) RCR (Criminal) 762, 'Tofan Singh vs. State of Tamil Nadu, AIR
2020 Supreme Court 5592, 'Smt. Najmunisha, Abdul Hamid Chandmiya
@ Ladoo Bapu vs. State of Gujrat, Narcotics Control Bureau' 2024 INSC
29 and 'Jugraj Singh Vs. State of Punjab' bearing Special Leave to Appeal
(Crl.)No.9190/2025.
Notice of motion.
On the strength of advance notice; Mr. Amit Kumar Goyal, Addl.
AG, Punjab has entered appearance on behalf of the respondent-State of
Punjab.
Adjourned to 27.11.2025.
State is at liberty to file reply, if so required.
The petitioner is directed to appear before the Investigating Officer
on 03.11.2025 at 11:00 A.M. in concerned Police Station and join
investigation. In the event of arrest, the petitioner shall be released on
interim bail subject to his furnishing personal/surety bond(s) to the
satisfaction of the Arresting Officer/Investigating Officer. As and when
further called by Investigating Officer, the petitioner shall join the
investigation. He shall abide by the condition(s) enumerated under Section
482(2) of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023."
3. Learned State counsel (on instructions) has submitted that
pursuant to the order dated 28.10.2025, the petitioner has joined
investigation and his custodial interrogation is not required.
4. Keeping in view the factual milieu of the case in hand;
especially factum of the petitioner having joined investigation, he is not
required for custodial interrogation, and he being arrayed as an accused on
the basis of disclosure statement, this Court is inclined to confirm the order
dated 28.10.2025, in light of the dicta of judgment passed by this Court in
CRM--M-54032
CRM 54032--2024 'Ashu Vs. State of Punjab' and the judgment passed
by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in 'Jugraj Singh Vs. State of Haryana bearing
Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No.9190/2025.
5. Accordingly, the petition is allowed, and the order dated
28.10.2025 granting interim anticipatory bail to the petitioner is hereby
made absolute, subject to the conditions as enumerated under Section 482(2)
of BNSS.
2 of 3
CRM-
CRM-M-59934-
59934-2025
6. This order should not be treated as "blanket" order. It will not
be read granting petitioner indefinite protection from arrest. It shall be
confined to the FIR mentioned ibid and will not operate in respect of any
other incident that involves commission of an offence.
7. Liberty is reserved in favour of State/complainant to move for
cancellation/recall of this order in case the petitioner violates any condition
stipulated under Section 482(2) of BNSS or upon showing any other
sufficient cause.
8. Needless to say that anything observed herein above shall not
be construed to be an opinion on the merits of the case.
9. Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of.
(SUMEET GOEL)
JUDGE
November 27,
27, 2025
mahavir
Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No
Whether reportable: Yes/No
3 of 3
