[Cites 4, Cited by 0]
Punjab-Haryana High Court
Rajveer vs State Of Haryana on 23 March, 2026
CRM-M-20734-2025 1
104
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CRM-M-20734-2025
DECIDED ON: 23.03.2026
RAJVEER .....PETITIONER
VERSUS
STATE OF HARYANA .....RESPONDENT
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY VASHISTH.
Present: Ms. Vaishali Kamboj, Advocate,
for the petitioner.
Mr. Parveen Kumar Aggarwal, Addl. AG, Haryana.
SANJAY VASHISTH, J (ORAL)
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 & age FIR No. Date Section(s) Police District
of Petitioner Station
(s)
Rajveer, 384 30.12.2024 20 of the Dadri Sadar Charkhi
aged about NDPS Act, Dadri
42 years (Section 27-
A added
later on)
2. After hearing the submissions addressed by counsel for the
petitioner, on 22.04.2025, following order was passed:-
"2. Learned counsel for the petitioner, inter
alia, contends that recovery in the present case
pertains to 204 grams of charas from the possession of
the accused, namely, Pardeep @ Mahal. It is only
thereafter that the name of the petitioner has been
implicated in the case on the basis of the disclosure
statement made by the said accused.
3. It is further submitted that the petitioner's
name does not find mention in the FIR and has been
subsequently introduced into the investigation,
allegedly due to the fact that he was already known to
the police officials. Thus, prays for grant of
concession of anticipatory bail to the petitioner in the
present case.
4. Notice of motion
5. On advance notice, Mr. Kanwar Sanjiv
Kumar, AAG, Haryana, puts in appearance on behalf
of the respondent - State, and submits that in fact,
there is connecting evidence in the form of telephonic
communication between the petitioner and the main
accused namely Pardeep @ Mahal. Thus, he seeks
some time to file a status report in the matter.
6. Adjourned to 13.05.2025, to enable
learned State counsel to file status report in the
matter."
3. As per the allegations, recovery in the present case pertains
to 204 grams of charas from the possession of the accused, namely,
Pardeep @ Mahal. It is only thereafter that name of the petitioner has
been implicated in the case on the basis of the disclosure statement made
by the said accused.
4. Learned State counsel submits that petitioner allegedly sold
the recovered charas to co-accused Pardeep @ Mahal, and call detail
records indicate that petitioner remained in regular telephonic contact
with the said co-accused from 22.12.2024 to 30.12.2024.
5. However, upon being queried by the Court, learned State
counsel was unable to clarify whether the main accused Pardeep @
Mahal, was also in contact with any other persons during the said period,
or why the present petitioner alone has been singled out as an accused
primarily on the basis of telephonic conversations with the main accused.
6. Nevertheless, without expressing any opinion on this aspect,
the matter is left to learned trial Court to determine whether, in fact, it
was the petitioner who supplied the recovered charas to co-accused
Pardeep @ Mahal.
Furthermore, it is not in dispute that reliance placed solely
on the disclosure statement of a co-accused requires corroboration
through independent and reliable evidence.
7. Considering the nature of allegations against the petitioner,
and requirement of substantive evidence to establish the facts disclosed in
the statement of the co-accused, this Court does not find any special
reason to subject the petitioner for custodial interrogation.
8. Accordingly, present petition is disposed of, by directing the
petitioner 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.).
9. 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.
10. With the directions issued here above, present petition stands
disposed of.
(SANJAY VASHISTH)
23.03.2026 JUDGE
Lavisha
Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No
Whether reportable Yes/No
