[Cites 10, Cited by 0]
Punjab-Haryana High Court
Mohit Kumar vs Ut Of Chandigarh on 18 April, 2026
CRM-M-21053-2026 -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
124
CRM-M-21053-2026
Decided on : 18.04.2026
Mohit Kumar . . . Petitioner(s)
Versus
UT Chandigarh . . . Respondent(s)
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY VASHISTH
PRESENT: Mr. Kamal Chaudhary, Advocate
for the petitioner(s).
Mr. Manish Bansal, PP, UT Chandigarh and
Mr. Alankrit Bhardwaj, Addl. PP, UT Chandigarh.
****
SANJAY VASHISTH, J. (Oral)
1. Petitioner - Mohit Kumar, aged about 32 years, has filed the
instant petition under Section 482 of the BNSS, 2023 (earlier Section 438
Cr.P.C.), seeking grant of anticipatory bail in respect of the subsequently
added offence(s), i.e. Section 27A of the NDPS Act, 1985, in case FIR
No.0002 dated 05.01.2025, initially registered under Sections 21 and 29 of
the NDPS Act, 1985 (with Section 27A added later), at Police Station ANTF,
Sector 11, Chandigarh.
2. Initially, FIR in the present case was registered only under
Section 21 of the NDPS Act, 1985, when on 05.01.2025 accused - Gautam
was arrested along with heroin weighing 70 grams. On the basis of the
disclosure statement of accused Gautam, another accused Rohit was arrested
on 07.01.2025 along with heroin weighing 10.30 grams. Thereafter, first
challan against accused Gautam and Rohit was presented on 02.03.2025.
Further, on the basis of disclosure statement, petitioner-Mohit
Kumar was also arrested on 15.03.2025. However, no substantial recovery
was effected from him. The prosecution further alleged that on the basis of
disclosure statement of Mohit Kumar, though nothing was recovered from
his possession, however, one more accused, namely Vijay Kumar, was
arrested on 15.03.2025 along with cocaine weighing 6.05 grams and
currency notes amounting to Rs.31,000/-. Another accused Rajat was also
arrested on 14.05.2025 on the basis of disclosure statement of co-accused
Vijay Kumar.
3. After completion of investigation, first supplementary challan
against the remaining aforesaid accused persons was presented on
14.05.2025. Thereafter, another accused Sukhdev Singh was arrested on
14.12.2025 along with heroin weighing 19.93 grams and one Bullet
motorcycle allegedly belonging to the petitioner-Mohit Kumar.
Consequently, second supplementary challan was presented on 10.02.2026.
However, this time, challan was submitted under Sections 21, 22, 29 and
27A of the NDPS Act, 1985 read with Section 111 of the BNS, 2023.
4. Considering the allegations against the petitioner that he was
allegedly managing drug money of co-accused Vijay Kumar, though nothing
was recovered from his possession and the quantity of contraband allegedly
connected with him was only 6.05 grams of cocaine recovered from Vijay
Kumar, petitioner-Mohit Kumar was granted concession of regular bail by
this Court vide order dated 21.08.2025 passed in CRM-M-28552-2025
(O&M) and connected matter titled Mohit v. Union Territory, Chandigarh
(Annexure P-3). His co-accused Rajat was also granted regular bail vide the
same order.
5. After grant of regular bail to the petitioner, when the second
supplementary challan was filed by the prosecution agency on 10.02.2026
against accused Sukhdev Singh, additional offences under Sections 22, 29
and 27A of the NDPS Act, 1985 and Section 111 of the BNS, 2023 were
invoked. While presenting the challan, it was mentioned in the official report
that Section 27A of the NDPS Act along with Section 111 of the BNS, 2023
were also invoked against the present petitioner, though he had already been
sent up to face trial earlier.
6. Apprehending arrest and being guided by the judgment of the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in Pradeep Ram v. State of Jharkhand & Anr.;
2019(3) RCR (Crl.) 538 : Law Finder Doc Id # 1526592, petitioner initially
approached the learned trial Court (Judge, Special Court, Chandigarh)
seeking anticipatory bail in respect of the newly added offences. However,
taking into consideration the bar contained under Section 37 of the NDPS
Act, the said relief was declined.
7. I have considered the submissions addressed by learned counsel
for the respective parties and have also gone through the relevant record
available on the case file. Prima facie, once regular bail had already been
granted to the petitioner by this Court vide order dated 21.08.2025
(Annexure P-3), mere addition of new Sections, namely Section 27A of the
NDPS Act and Section 111 of the BNS, 2023, would not by itself render the
earlier bail order inoperative.
Moreover, nothing has been pointed out by the prosecution as to
for what specific purpose custodial interrogation of the petitioner is now
required. The ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Pradeep
Ram's case would also be relevant in the present circumstances.
The relevant observations made by Hon'ble Apex Court are
reproduced here-under:-
"27. Relying on the above said order, learned counsel for the
appellant submits that respondent State ought to get first the order
dated 10.03.2016 granting bail to appellant cancelled before seeking
custody of the appellant. It may be true that by mere addition of an
offence in a criminal case, in which accused is bailed out, investigating
authorities itself may not proceed to arrest the accused and need to
obtain an order from the Court, which has released the accused on the
bail. It is also open for the accused, who is already on bail and with
regard to whom serious offences have been added to apply for bail in
respect of new offences added and the Court after applying the mind
may either refuse the bail or grant the bail with regard to new offences.
In a case, bail application of the accused for newly added offences is
rejected, the accused can very well be arrested. In all cases, where
accused is bailed out under orders of the Court and new offences are
added including offences of serious nature, it is not necessary that in all
cases earlier bail should be cancelled by the Court before granting
permission to arrest an accused on the basis of new offences. The
power under Sections 437(5) and 439(2) are wide powers granted to the
court by the Legislature under which Court can permit an accused to be
arrested and commit him to custody without even cancelling the bail
with regard to earlier offences. Sections 437(5) and 439(2) cannot be
read into restricted manner that order for arresting the accused and
commit him to custody can only be passed by the Court after cancelling
the earlier bail.
xx xxx xx xxx
xx xxx xx xxx
29. In view of the foregoing discussions, we arrive at following
conclusions in respect of a circumstance where after grant of bail to an
accused, further cognizable and non-bailable offences are added:-
(i) The accused can surrender and apply for bail for newly added
cognizable and non-bailable offences. In event of refusal of bail,
the accused can certainly be arrested.
(ii) The investigating agency can seek order from the court under
Section 437(5) or 439(2) of Cr.P.C. for arrest of the accused and
his custody.
(iii) The Court, in exercise of power under Section 437(5) or 439(2)
of Cr.P.C., can direct for taking into custody the accused who
has already been granted bail after cancellation of his bail The
Court in exercise of power under Section 437(5) as well as
Section 439(2) can direct the person who has already been
granted bail to be arrested and commit him to custody on
addition of graver and non-cognizable offences which may not
be necessary always with order of cancelling of earlier bail.
(iv) In a case where an accused has already been granted bail, the
investigating authority on addition of an offence or offences
may not proceed to arrest the accused, but for arresting the
accused on such addition of offence or offences it need to obtain
an order to arrest the accused from the Court which had granted
the bail."
This preposition has already been discussed by this Court in
CRM-M-33118-2025 (O&M) & connected case, titled as, "Himanshu Yadav
v. State of Haryana", pronounced on 16.12.2025.
8. If custodial interrogation of the petitioner is required, it shall
always be open to the Investigating Officer to move an appropriate
application before the competent Court by assigning specific reasons seeking
permission for re-arrest of the petitioner/accused. Therefore, merely because
in the earlier bail order dated 21.08.2025, the subsequently added provisions,
i.e. Sections 29 and 27A of the NDPS Act and Section 111 of the BNS, 2023,
were not mentioned, petitioner shall not be arrested in the said offences as
well, unless reasons are first placed before the trial Court by the
Investigating Agency/Investigating Officer and appropriate orders are
obtained in accordance with law.
9. Consequently, in view of the discussion made here-above and
the facts and circumstances noticed in paragraphs No.1 to 8, the present
petition is allowed. In the event of arrest of the petitioner in connection with
the subsequently added offences in the aforesaid FIR, he shall be released on
anticipatory bail to the satisfaction of the Arresting/Investigating Officer
concerned, subject to his furnishing requisite bail/surety bonds and further
subject to the conditions as envisaged under Section 482(2) of the BNSS,
2023.
10. It is, however, clarified that this order shall not preclude the
Investigating Agency from seeking custodial interrogation of the petitioner,
if so required, by moving an appropriate application before the competent
Court and by assigning specific reasons in accordance with law.
11. Nothing observed herein shall be construed as an expression on
the merits of the case.
12. With the directions issued here above, present petition stands
disposed of.
Pending misc. application(s), if any, also stand disposed of.
(SANJAY VASHISTH)
JUDGE
April 18, 2026
J.Ram
Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No
Whether Reportable: Yes/No
