[Cites 3, Cited by 0]
Punjab-Haryana High Court
Karandeep Singh vs State Of Haryana on 26 February, 2026
CRM-M-37993-2025 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
105
CRM-M-37993-2025
Decided on: 26.02.2026
KARANDEEP SINGH
......Petitioner
Versus
STATE OF HARYANA
......Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY VASHISTH
Present: Mr. Vishal Sharda, Advocate,
for the petitioner.
Mr. Kanwar Sanjiv Kumar, AAG, Haryana.
****
SANJAY VASHISTH, J.
1. Prayer in this petition, filed under Section 482 of the BNSS,
2023 (earlier Section 438 Cr.P.C.), is 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 of FIR No. Date Section(s) Police District
Petitioner (s) Station
Karandeep 308 18.06.2025 21b/61/85 of Sirsa City Sirsa
Singh NDPS Act
2. While recording the contentions addressed by counsel for the
petitioner, on 21.07.2025, following order was passed:-
"2. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends
that, according to the case of the prosecution, 25.053
grams of heroin was recovered from one Rahul
Dhingra. As per the FIR, when accused Rahul
Dhingra was arrested and interrogated, he disclosed
that the contraband was delivered to him by an
unknown person who stated that it had been sent by
Karan, son of Gurjeet Singh. Counsel submits that
there is neither any relationship nor any deal between
the petitioner and main accused-Rahul Dhingra.
Moreover, the petitioner has been falsely implicated in
this case solely because he is already known to the
police due to involvement in four other criminal cases.
There is no specific reason necessitating his
interrogation. Counsel submits that petitioner is ready
and willing to cooperate with the investigation officer
and to join the investigation, whenever required.
Accordingly, he prays for the grant of anticipatory
bail.
Notice of motion.
On advance notice, Mr. Kanwar Sanjiv Kumar,
AAG, Haryana puts in appearance on behalf of the
respondent - State. He seeks some time to file reply.
3. Learned State Counsel is directed to file status
report on or before the next date of hearing.
4. Adjourned to 11.09.2025.
5. Till the next date of hearing, arrest of the
petitioner shall remain stayed. However, the issue of
the petitioner's joining the investigation will be
examined after considering the reply of the
respondent/State."
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner reiterates his submission
that except of the disclosure statement, there is no other connecting
evidence collected by the prosecution during the course of investigation.
Moreover, petitioner is ready to join investigation and fully cooperate, if
protected from arrest by this Court. Thus, he prays for grant of
anticipatory bail to the petitioner in the present case.
4. On the other hand, learned State counsel places reliance
upon paragraph No.5 of the status report dated 03.09.2025, and submits
that one mobile phone bearing sim No.99887-88868, registered in the
name of one Arshdeep Singh, was being used by the petitioner and by
using the said mobile phone, petitioner was in contact with the main
accused namely Rahul Dhingra, from whom 25.53 grams of heroin has
been recovered.
Further submits that even when Arshdeep Singh joined the
investigation, he told that the said mobile phone was being used by the
present petitioner.
5. Responding to the contentions addressed by learned State
counsel, counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner has been falsely
implicated. Moreover, the said mobile phone bearing sim No.99887-
88868, was never used by the petitioner, and even if the contention made
by learned State counsel is accepted, the same is not enough to assume
that it was the petitioner only, who supplied the recovered heroin to the
main accused Rahul Dhingra.
6. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
7. Undoubtedly, case of the prosecution rests primarily on the
disclosure statement of the main accused, namely Rahul Dhingra, from
whom 25.53 grams of heroin was allegedly recovered, and on his
purported connection with a person using mobile number 99887-88868.
It is pertinent to note that recovery effected in the present case is
significantly below the commercial quantity threshold of 250 grams, and
the said recovery has been made solely from the main accused.
8. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, and for
the purpose of investigation, this Court does not find any substantial or
compelling reason to subject the petitioner for custodial interrogation.
Accordingly, this Court deems it appropriate to extend the concession of
bail to the petitioner in the present case.
9. Therefore, petitioner is directed to join the investigation
within two weeks from today, or as and when called by the investigating
agency, and in the eventuality of the arrest, petitioner would be released
on anticipatory bail, subject to his furnishing bail bonds to the
satisfaction of the Arresting Officer. The petitioner shall also be abide by
all the conditions laid down under Section 482(2) of BNSS, 2023 (earlier
Section 438(2) Cr.P.C.).
10. Besides, it is directed that petitioner would hand over his
passport to the Investigating Agency or to Court concerned, if he
possesses. Otherwise, would submit an affidavit, disclosing the fact that
he does not possess any passport.
It is also directed that before leaving country any time during
trial, petitioner would seek prior permission of the Court.
11. With the directions issued here above, present petition stands
disposed of.
(SANJAY VASHISTH)
JUDGE
26.02.2026
Lavisha
Whether Speaking/Reasoned: YES/NO
Whether Reportable: YES/NO
