[Cites 4, Cited by 0]
Punjab-Haryana High Court
Inderjit Singh @ Happy vs State Of Punjab on 24 March, 2026
CRM-M-33072-2025 1
103
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CRM-M-33072-2025
DECIDED ON: 24.03.2026
INDERJIT SINGH @ HAPPY .....PETITIONER
VERSUS
STATE OF PUNJAB .....RESPONDENT
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY VASHISTH.
Present: None for the petitioner.
Mr. Neeraj Madaan, Sr. DAG, Punjab.
SANJAY VASHISTH, J (ORAL)
1. Present petition has been filed for grant of anticipatory bail
to the petitioner, in case bearing FIR No.34 dated 24.05.2025 u/s 21(c),
61 and 85 of NDPS Act, 1985, registered at Police Station Behrampur,
District Gurdaspur.
2. After hearing the submissions addressed by counsel for the
petitioner, on 23.06.2025, following order was passed:-
"2. Learned counsel for the petitioner
submits that recovery of 266 grams of heroin was
effected from the main accused, namely Badal.
However, name of the petitioner does not figure in the
FIR, nor he was implicated during the course of initial
investigation. It was only at a later stage, and merely
on the basis of an alleged disclosure statement, that
petitioner was made an accused in the present case. It
is argued that, as per the settled position of law,
disclosure statement alone, unless corroborated by
some other substantive evidence, carries no
evidentiary value and cannot form the sole basis for
implication.
3. Counsel further points out that, even at
the time of effecting of recovery of contraband from
the main accused, neither any independent witness
was joined nor gazetted officer was called on the spot.
It is also submitted that although the petitioner is
named in two other criminal cases, as mentioned in
paragraph 15 of the petition, but he has already been
granted bail in the NDPS case (FIR No.2 dated
11.01.2024). In respect of the other case i.e. FIR
No.73 dated 08.08.2022, dispute has been
compromised between the parties.
4. Emphasizing that petitioner is neither an
habitual offender under the NDPS Act nor has ever
been convicted by any court of law, counsel for the
petitioner contends that custodial interrogation is not
warranted in the present circumstances. Thus, prays
for grant of concession of anticipatory bail to the
petitioner in the present case.
5. Notice of motion.
6. On advance notice, Mr. Manjinder Singh
Bhullar, DAG, Punjab, puts in appearance on behalf
of the respondent - State, and seeks some time to file
status report in the matter.
7. Adjourned to 16.09.2025.
8. In the meanwhile, the petitioner is
directed to join the investigation as and when required
to do so by the Investigating Agency. In the event of
his arrest, the petitioner shall be released on ad-
interim 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."
3. On the next date of hearing, i.e., 16.09.2025, learned counsel
for the petitioner submitted that due to certain family issues, petitioner
could not join the investigation in compliance with the directions earlier
issued by this Court, and accordingly prayed for a last opportunity.
4. Today, there is no representation on behalf of the petitioner.
5. However, learned State counsel, on instructions from ASI
Harbans Lal, submits that despite being granted opportunities to join the
investigation on two occasions, i.e., on 23.06.2025 and 16.09.2025,
petitioner has failed to comply with the directions passed by this Court,
and has not come forward to join the investigation. He, therefore, prays
for dismissal of the present petition.
6. In view of the fact that petitioner has failed to join the
investigation despite being granted sufficient opportunities on two
occasions, this Court finds no reason to keep the present petition pending
or to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner. Accordingly, present
petition is dismissed.
7. Investigating Officer is directed to proceed further in
accordance with law, without any delay.
(SANJAY VASHISTH)
24.03.2026 JUDGE
Lavisha
Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No
Whether reportable Yes/No
