Punjab-Haryana High Court
Harmanjit Singh Sandhu Alias Hamma vs Union Of India Through The Intelligence … on 27 July, 2026
1
CRM-M-21863-2026 (O&M) and
CRM-M-21876-2026 (O&M)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
(101)
Date of Decision:-27.07.2026
1. CRM-M-21863-2026 (O&M)
HARMANJIT SINGH SANDHU ALIAS HAMMA
......Petitioner
Versus
UNION OF INDIA THROUGH THE INTELLIGENCE OFFICER,
AMRITSAR
......Respondents
2. CRM-M-21876-2026 (O&M)
HARMANJIT SINGH SANDHU ALIAS HAMMA
......Petitioner
Versus
UNION OF INDIA THROUGH THE INTELLIGENCE OFFICER,
AMRITSAR
......Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK JAIN
****
Present: Mr. P.S. Ahluwalia, Senior Advocate with
Mr. Deepanshu, Advocate and
Ms. Isha Mehta, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. Rajiv Sharma (Hisarwale) Special Public Prosecutor,
Mr. Vinayak Atre, Advocate and
Ms. Indu Bala Shama, Advocate for the respondent-NCB.
Assisted by Inspector Sourabh Meena.
****
PARUL
2026.07.28 17:09
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this document/order
2
CRM-M-21863-2026 (O&M) and
CRM-M-21876-2026 (O&M)
ALOK JAIN, J. (Oral)
1. The present set of two petitions have been filed under Section
482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (corresponding to
Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973), seeking the
concession of anticipatory bail in connection with NCB Crime No. 08 of
2026 (CRM-M-21863-2026) and NCB Crime No. 14 of 2026
(CRM-M-21876-2026) both registered by the Narcotics Control Bureau,
Amritsar.
2. Learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner
has opened his arguments by submitting that there is no FIR in the present
case and submits that CRM-M-21863-2026 arises out of NCB Crime No.
08, registered on 15.02.2026. Learned Senior Counsel further submits that
on 15.02.2026, a search was conducted at the residential premises of co-
accused Harpal Singh, which allegedly led to the recovery of 2.950 kg of
Opium, 5.504 kg of Methamphetamine, and 8.740 kg of Heroin,
pursuant to which co-accused Harpal Singh and Jodhbeer were nominated.
On the basis of the disclosure statement made by Jodhbeer, one Jasbir
Singh was nominated and he has laid emphasis on the date of recording of
this disclosure statement to be that of 16.02.2026. Subsequently, Jasbir
Singh was apprehended and in the disclosure statement of Jasbir Singh, the
name of the present petitioner was nominated in NCB Crime No. 8 of 2026.
PARUL
2026.07.28 17:09
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this document/order
3
CRM-M-21863-2026 (O&M) and
CRM-M-21876-2026 (O&M)
Putting the factual matrix at a pause at this stage, learned Senior counsel for
the petitioner has submitted that another NCB Crime No. 14 was registered
on 11.03.2026 in which the Authorities stated to have recovered 9.332 kgs
of heroin and apprehended one Nishan Singh @ Shana and subsequently,
in his disclosure statement, pursuant to the remand applications qua Nishan
Singh @ Shana, disclosure statement came to be recorded in which the
name of one Paramjeet Singh @ Pamma and Harmanjit Singh @ Hamma
was recorded i.e. the present petitioner. It is submitted that both these
persons are closely related.
3. Coming back to the proceedings in NCB Crime No. 8 of 2026,
learned counsel has submitted that the residential premises of the present
petitioner was raided on 15.02.2026, whereas his name came to be
allegedly disclosed by co-accused Jasbir Singh only on 16.02.2026.
4. The sequence of events demonstrates pre-meditated targeting
and high-handedness on the part of the investigating agency. It is submitted
that the sole piece of evidence arrayed against the petitioner in NCB Crime
No. 08 dated 15.02.2026 is an uncorroborated disclosure statement, which
carries no evidentiary value in the absence of any independent material or
recovery at his instance.
5. Learned Senior Counsel further submits that when the
petitioner could not be apprehended in NCB Crime No. 08, the agency, in
PARUL
2026.07.28 17:09
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this document/order
4
CRM-M-21863-2026 (O&M) and
CRM-M-21876-2026 (O&M)
order to exert undue pressure roped him into NCB Crime No. 14,
registered on 11.03.2026, wherein alleged recoveries were effected from
co-accused Nishan Singh @ Shana. Attention of this Court has been drawn
to the fact that in the initial remand application filed by the NCB in case
bearing No. NCB Crime No. 14 on 12.03.2026, the name of the present
petitioner nowhere surfaced. On 13.03.2026, the brother of the petitioner
was arrested, and while his name found mention in the remand application
pertaining to NCB Crime No. 08, his name was conspicuously absent from
NCB Crime No. 14. It was only subsequently, in the remand application
dated 16.03.2026 in NCB Crime No. 14, that a disclosure statement of co-
accused Nishan Singh @ Shana was concocted, implicating the petitioner
alongside co-accused ‘Paramjit Singh @ Pamma’. In the said disclosure, it
was alleged that a secret meeting was convened on 06.03.2026 at the
residence of Paramjit Singh @ Pamma, in which the petitioner participated.
6. It is submitted that the sole piece of evidence arrayed against
the petitioner in NCB Crime No. 08 and NCB crime No. 14 is an
uncorroborated disclosure statement, recorded while in custody, there is no
substantive or credible material on record connecting the petitioner with the
alleged crime.
7. Learned Senior Counsel further contends that the agency
attempted to attach four sets of properties belonging to the petitioner and
PARUL
2026.07.28 17:09
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this document/order
5
CRM-M-21863-2026 (O&M) and
CRM-M-21876-2026 (O&M)
his family members. However, the Competent Authority declined to
confirm the attachment regarding the 03 kanals land purchased by the
petitioner from co-accused Nishan Singh @ Shana, which was wrongly
projected as ‘proceeds of crime’. The Competent Authority confirmed
attachment only in respect of a land parcel owned by the petitioner’s
mother and two motor vehicles owned by the petitioner, which were, in
fact, second-hand vehicles. Further regarding criminal antecedents of the
petitioner, it is submitted that the petitioner was involved in two prior FIRs.
In both matters, the petitioner is on bail. Notably, in the prior FIR registered
under the NDPS Act in the year 2019, the alleged contraband involved was
of a non-commercial quantity, and the concession of bail was extended to
the petitioner.
8. On the strength of the above, learned Senior counsel for the
petitioner has submitted a chronological chart of events, which reads as
under:
S. No. Date/Period Event
On 15.02.2026, officials of the NCB, Amritsar
Zonal Unit conducted a search at the residence
of Harpal Singh, during which they allegedly
recovered 2.950 kg of opium, 5.504 kg of
1 15.02.2026 methamphetamine, and 8.740 kg of heroin.
At the time of the search, Jodhbir Singh @
Ranjot Singh and Harpal Singh were present at
the spot, leading to the registration of NCB
PARUL
2026.07.28 17:09
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this document/order
6
CRM-M-21863-2026 (O&M) and
CRM-M-21876-2026 (O&M)
Crime No. 8/2026 dated 15.02.2026.
On the same date, Petitioner’s residence was
also searched by officials connected with the
2 15.02.2026 investigation, and subsequent departmental
enquiry correspondence referred to three
videos recorded after the said search.
Jodhbir Singh @ Ranjit Singh and Harpal
Singh were served notices under Sec. 67 NDPS
3 16.02.2026
Act, their statements recorded, and thereafter
formally arrested.
On the basis of the disclosure statement of
Jodhbir Singh @ Ranjot Singh, Jasbir Singh
4 16.02.2026 was implicated; he was served a notice under
Section 67 of the NDPS Act, his statement was
recorded, and was arrested on the same date.
After the arrest of Jasbir Singh and the
recording of his disclosure statement on the
5 16.02.2026 said date, the present petitioner came to be
sought to be nominated in NCB Crime No.
8/2026.
Subsequently, in NCB Crime No. 14/2026,
accused Nishan Singh @ Shana disclosed
that, on the said date, a meeting was held at the
residence of Paramjit Singh @ Pamma,
wherein Harmanjit Singh @ Hamma,
Sukhchain Singh and others regarding receipt
6 06.03.2026
of a heroin consignment dropped through a
drone from across the international border, as
well as its transportation and distribution, along
with an alleged payment of ₹75,000/- to
Nishan Singh and transfer of about 0.5 killa
of land to the petitioner.
7 09.03.2026 During the intervening night of
09/10.03.2026, Petitioner’s wife and his
cousin, Paramjit Singh @ Pamma, were
allegedly illegally picked up from their
residence by officials, SP Kartik Hooda and
Inspector Pankaj Yadav, along with
paramilitary personnel; an occurrence captured
in mobile recordings/CCTV footage. This
assumes significance as the subsequent
projection of Paramjit Singh@ Pamma in NCB
Crime No. 14/2026stands in contrast with the
PARUL
2026.07.28 17:09
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this document/order
7
CRM-M-21863-2026 (O&M) and
CRM-M-21876-2026 (O&M)
production and custody papers prepared
immediately thereafter.
Paramjit Singh @ Pamma was shown
8 10.03.2026 arrested for allegedly harbouring the
petitioner.
The petitioner’s wife was released at
midnight on 11.03.2026 after villagers and
panchayat members gathered outside the NCB
9 11.03.2026
Zonal Office, while Paramjit Singh @ Pamma
was shown to have been arrested for allegedly
harbouring the petitioner.
Application seeking remand of Paramjit Singh
@ Pamma was moved before the learned
10 11.03.2026
Magistrate, which is relied upon as his first
production/remand application.
In NCB Crime No. 14/2026, the NCB,
Amritsar is stated to have received 9.332 kg of
suspected heroin from the BSF officials of
11 11.03.2026 BOP Daoke, 181 Battalion, who had
apprehended Nishan Singh @ Shana, leading
to the registration of the said case on
11.03.2026.
In NCB Crime No. 14/2026, Nishan Singh @
Shana was served notice under Section 67 of
the NDPS Act, his statement was recorded and
was shown to have been arrested at 11:00 AM
12 12.03.2026 at the NCB Office, Amritsar, following which
he was produced before the learned Court. At
this stage, the alleged implication of the present
petitioner and Paramjit Singh @ Pamma did
not find reflection, as was later projected.
Paramjit Singh @ Pamma was produced before
the learned JMIC, Amritsar, and an application
13 13.03.2026 for judicial custody was filed. The application
did not mention the parallel allegations that
were later made in NCB Crime No. 14/2026.
PARUL
2026.07.28 17:09
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this document/order
8
CRM-M-21863-2026 (O&M) and
CRM-M-21876-2026 (O&M)
In subsequent remand application of Nishan
Singh @ Shana, that Paramjit Singh @
14 16.03.2026 Pamma and Harmanjit Singh @ Hamma
came to be shown as nominated in NCB Crime
No. 14/2026.
At 2:59 PM, a detailed representation titled
“Urgent Representation Seeking Immediate
Intervention and Protection” was submitted
on behalf of the petitioner’s mother, Smt.
15 20.03.2026
Harjinder Kaur, to senior authorities, alleging
illegal harassment, detention, coercion, and
threats to life and liberty, along with video
footage and prior representations.
In CRWP-3352-2026, filed by the petitioner’s
mother, the Hon’ble High Court issued
16 23.03.2026
directions to the DG-NCB, to take appropriate
action.
At 6:47 PM, pursuant to the Hon’ble High
Court’s order, the office of the DDG (NWR),
NCB acknowledged receipt of the grievance,
17 23.03.2026
stated that the matter was under verification,
and requested that it be presented personally
before the authority for appropriate action.
At 2:35 PM, the office of the DDG (SWR),
NCB, Mumbai informed that, pursuant to the
Hon’ble High Court’s order in CRWP-3352-
18 03.04.2026
2026, an enquiry had been assigned, and a
meeting was scheduled for 07.04.2026 at 11.00
AM at the Office of the DC, Tarn Taran.
At 2:38 PM, counsel confirmed the
participation of Smt. Harjinder Kaur and her
19 03.04.2026
representative in the enquiry proceedings
scheduled for 07.04.2026 at Tarn Taran.
Enquiry proceedings were held at the Office of
the Deputy Commissioner, Tarn Taran,
pursuant to the Hon’ble High Court’s order,
20 07.04.2026
wherein statements were recorded and
video/CCTV material was produced before the
authority.
At 1:53 PM, the office of the DDG (SWR),
21 13.04.2026 NCB, Mumbai sent a follow-up
PARUL
2026.07.28 17:09
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this document/order
9
CRM-M-21863-2026 (O&M) and
CRM-M-21876-2026 (O&M)
communication referring to the statement dated
07.04.2026 and six videos produced, while
seeking clarification regarding three videos
recorded after the search conducted on
15.02.2026.
9. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the
judgment passed by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court, in the case of
“Ravinder Singh @ Ravi vs. State of Punjab” in CRM-M-57242-2024
decided on 27.02.2025.
10. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner has also relied upon
certain judgments, which reads as under:
1. State by Intelligence Officer (NCB) Bengaluru Zonal Unit,
Bengaluru Vs. Abu Thahir @ Abdu and others, 2022 12 SCC
634.
2. Manohar Singh Vs. State of Haryana, in SLP (Crl.) No.
17915-2025.
3. Jugraj Singh Vs. State of Punjab, in SLP (Crl.) No. 9190-
2025
4. Lovepreet Singh @ Love Vs. State of Punjab,
2025:PHHC:117343, in CRM-M-10045-2025, decided on
01.09.2025.
5. Balwinder Kaur Vs. State of Haryana, 2026:PHHC:026291,
in CRM-M-68715-2025 decided on 19.02.2026.
PARUL
2026.07.28 17:09
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this document/order
10
CRM-M-21863-2026 (O&M) and
CRM-M-21876-2026 (O&M)
6. Baljit Singh Vs. State of Punjab, CRM-M-71532-2025
decided on 27.01.2026.
7. Divyanshi Singh Vs. State of Punjab, CRM-M-54689-2025
decided on 09.03.2026.
8. Ashu Vs. State of Punjab, 2025:PHHC:002122, in CRM-M-
54032-2024 decided on 09.01.2025.
11. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner has also submitted
that, in fact, the Investigating Officer has threatened the petitioner and his
family members of dire consequences while raiding the house repeatedly
and has been harassing the other family members including the wife of the
petitioner.
12. Per contra, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent-
NCB has vehemently opposed the grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner
by submitting that the allegations levelled against the petitioner are grave
and serious in nature. Learned counsel submits that the petitioner is a key
conspirator and part of an organized international illicit drug trafficking
network, operating in tandem with other co-accused named in the present
case. Learned counsel for the NCB refuted the alleged anomaly regarding
the raid conducted on 15.02.2026 at the petitioner’s residence.
Demonstrating from the official record, learned counsel submitted that
following the formation of the raiding team, co-accused Jasbir Singh’s
statement was recorded on 15.02.2026 itself, which immediately led to the
PARUL
2026.07.28 17:09
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this document/order
11
CRM-M-21863-2026 (O&M) and
CRM-M-21876-2026 (O&M)
raid at the petitioner’s premises following due procedure. Learned counsel
clarified that Jasbir Singh was thereafter formally arrested on 16.02.2026,
and the arrest memo was executed accordingly. Merely such minor
technical details cannot form basis for seeking grant of the extra-ordinary
concession of anticipatory bail. Learned counsel has submitted that before
dwelling upon the factual matrix of the matter, he wishes to raise a
preliminary objection with regard to the non-grant of relief sought, that
since there is involvement of huge commercial quantity, it has been
consistent view of the Hon’ble Apex Court and by this Court for which he
relies upon the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of
“State of Haryana Vs. Samarth Kumar“, in SLP (Crl.) No. 6575 of 2021
and held para 4, which reads as under:
“The High Court decided to grant pre-arrest bail to the
respondents on the only ground that no recovery was effected
from the respondents and that they had been implicated only
on the basis of the disclosure statement of the main accused
Dinesh Kumar. Therefore, reliance was placed by the High
Court in the majority judgment of this Court in “Tofan Singh
Vs. State of Tamil Nadu” reported in (2021) 4 SCC 1.”
13. Learned counsel for the NCB has further relied upon the
judgment passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of “State of Kerala
etc. Vs. Rajesh”, in Criminal Appeal No. 154-157 of 2020 and held as
under:
PARUL
2026.07.28 17:09
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this document/order
12CRM-M-21863-2026 (O&M) and
CRM-M-21876-2026 (O&M)
“19. This Court has laid down broad parameters to be
followed while considering the application for bail
moved by the accused involved in offences under NDPS
Act. In Union of India Vs. Ram Samujh and Ors.
1999(9) SCC 429, it has been elaborated as under:−
7. It is to be borne in mind that the aforesaid
legislative mandate is required to be adhered to and
followed. It should be borne in mind that in a murder
case, the accused commits murder of one or two
persons, while those persons who are dealing in
narcotic drugs are instrumental in causing death or in
inflicting death−blow to a number of innocent young
victims, who are vulnerable; it causes deleterious effects
and a deadly impact on the society; they are a hazard to
the society; even if they are released temporarily, in all
probability, they would continue their nefarious
activities of trafficking and/or dealing in intoxicants
clandestinely. Reason may be large stake and illegal
profit involved. This Court, dealing with the contention
with regard to punishment under the NDPS Act, has
succinctly observed about the adverse effect of such
activities in Durand Didier v. Chief Secy., Union
Territory of Goa [(1990) 1 SCC 95)] as under:
24. With deep concern, we may point out that the
organised activities of the underworld and the
clandestine smuggling of narcotic drugs and
psychotropic substances into this country and
illegal trafficking in such drugs and substancesPARUL
2026.07.28 17:09
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this document/order
13CRM-M-21863-2026 (O&M) and
CRM-M-21876-2026 (O&M)
have led to drug addiction among a sizeable
section of the public, particularly the adolescents
and students of both sexes and the menace has
assumed serious and alarming proportions in the
recent years. Therefore, in order to effectively
control and eradicate this proliferating and
booming devastating menace, causing deleterious
effects and deadly impact on the society as a
whole, Parliament in its wisdom, has made
effective provisions by introducing this Act 81 of
1985 specifying mandatory minimum
imprisonment and fine.
8. To check the menace of dangerous drugs flooding
the market, Parliament has provided that the person
accused of offences under the NDPS Act should not be
released on bail during trial unless the mandatory
conditions provided in Section 37, namely,
(i) there are reasonable grounds for believing
that the accused is not guilty of such offence; and
(ii) that he is not likely to commit any offence
while on bail are satisfied. The High Court has
not given any justifiable reason for not abiding by
the aforesaid mandate while ordering the release
of the respondent−accused on bail. Instead of
attempting to take a holistic view of the harmful
socio− economic consequences and health
hazards which would accompany trafficking
illegally in dangerous drugs, the court should
PARUL
2026.07.28 17:09
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this document/order
14
CRM-M-21863-2026 (O&M) and
CRM-M-21876-2026 (O&M)
implement the law in the spirit with which
Parliament, after due deliberation, has amended.
20. The scheme of Section 37 reveals that the exercise
of power to grant bail is not only subject to the
limitations contained under Section 439 of the CrPC,
but is also subject to the limitation placed by Section 37
which commences with non−obstante clause. The
operative part of the said section is in the negative form
prescribing the enlargement of bail to any person
accused of commission of an offence under the Act,
unless twin conditions are satisfied. The first condition
is that the prosecution must be given an opportunity to
oppose the application; and the second, is that the Court
must be satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for
believing that he is not guilty of such offence. If either of
these two conditions is not satisfied, the ban for
granting bail operates.
21. The expression reasonable grounds means
something more than prima facie grounds. It
contemplates substantial probable causes for believing
that the accused is not guilty of the alleged offence. The
reasonable belief contemplated in the provision requires
existence of such facts and circumstances as are
sufficient in themselves to justify satisfaction that the
accused is not guilty of the alleged offence. In the case
on hand, the High Court seems to have completely
overlooked the underlying object of Section 37 that in
addition to the limitations provided under the CrPC, or
PARUL
2026.07.28 17:09
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this document/order
15
CRM-M-21863-2026 (O&M) and
CRM-M-21876-2026 (O&M)
any other law for the time being in force, regulating the
grant of bail, its liberal approach in the matter of bail
under the NDPS Act is indeed uncalled for.
22. We may further like to observe that the learned
Single Judge has failed to record a finding mandated
under Section 37 of the NDPS Act which is a sine qua
non for granting bail to the accused under the NDPS
Act.
xxx xxx xxx
26. In the result, the appeals are allowed and the
impugned order passed by the High Court releasing the
respondents on bail is hereby set aside. Bail bonds of
the accused respondents stand cancelled and they are
directed to be taken into custody. The trial Court is
directed to proceed and expedite the trial.”
14. Learned counsel for the NCB has relied upon the judgment
passed by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of “Ravi Vs.
State of Punjab” in CRM-M-48030-2024 decided on 25.09.2024 where the
Court has held that the anticipatory bail is a rarity especially when the drug
menace is rampant in the State of Punjab and the accused is always free to
seek the concession of regular bail.
15. Learned counsel for the NCB has also relied upon the
judgment passed by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of
PARUL
2026.07.28 17:09
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this document/order
16
CRM-M-21876-2026 (O&M)
“Sagar Vs. State of Haryana” 2026 NCPHHC 95138 in CRM-M-37575-
2026 and held para 7 and 7.2, which reads as under:
“7. The petitioner seeks the extraordinary concession
of anticipatory bail in a case registered under the
provisions of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic
Substances Act, 1985, involving recovery of 503 grams
of Heroin, which is admittedly a commercial quantity.
Though the petitioner is not named in the FIR, his
complicity has surfaced during the course of
investigation on the basis of the disclosure statement
suffered by co-accused Gurkirpal Singh @ Varun,
wherein it has been specifically alleged that the
recovered contraband had been procured from the
present petitioner for valuable consideration. At this
stage, the investigation is still in progress and the role
attributed to the petitioner is not that of a mere
peripheral participant but prima facie that of a supplier
in the alleged narcotics trafficking network.
7.2. It is well settled that although a disclosure
statement, by itself, may ultimately be tested during trial
in accordance with the provisions of the Indian Evidence
Act/ Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, the Court, while
considering a petition for anticipatory bail, is not
expected to meticulously evaluate the evidentiary value
of the material collected during investigation. The Court
is only required to examine whether custodialPARUL
2026.07.28 17:09
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this document/order
17CRM-M-21863-2026 (O&M) and
CRM-M-21876-2026 (O&M)
interrogation appears necessary for the purposes of a
fair and effective investigation.”.
16. Furthermore, learned counsel for the NCB has relied upon the
judgment passed by the a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court, in case, titled as
“Buta Singh Vs. State of Punjab” 2026:PHHC:052038 in CRM-M-
18128-2026 decided on 06.04.2026 and the relevant extract is reproduced
as under:
“12. In Samarth Kumar (supra) the Hon’ble Supreme
Court had clearly held that an accused who had been
named in the disclosure statement of a co-accused was
not entitled to the grant of anticipatory bail but could be
granted regular bail. However, in “Vijay Singh Vs.
State of Haryana“, 2023 SCC Online SC 1235, a
somewhat contrary view was taken and the accused
therein was granted the concession of anticipatory bail
even though he had been an accused in another case
under the NDPS Act in which he was on bail.
In “Vikrant Singh Vs. State of Punjab”,
CRM-M-39657-2020, this Court held that where an
accused had been named in the disclosure statement of
his co-accused and there were CDRs/WhatsApp
calls/chats between the arrested accused and the person
named in a disclosure statement then in the absence of
the contents of the conversation/chats bail could not be
denied to the said accused. In “Union of India vs. Vigin
K. Varghese“, 2025 INSC 1316, the Hon’ble SupremePARUL
2026.07.28 17:09
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this document/order
18CRM-M-21863-2026 (O&M) and
CRM-M-21876-2026 (O&M)
Court has held that bail cannot be granted without
keeping in view the parameters of Section 37 of the
NDPS Act. In “Ranjit Singh Vs. State of Punjab”,
CRM-M-25526-2023 decided on 17.07.2023 and “Soni
Singh @ Chamkaur Sahib Vs. State of Punjab”,
CRM-M-31645-2022 decided on 20.10.2022 it has been
held by this Court that where there were multiple FIRs
against an accused over a period of time then, even
though he had been named in a disclosure statement, he
was not entitled to the concession of bail.
xxx xxx xxx
15. In fact, when there are multiple FIRs against an
accused over a significant period of time, then the twin
conditions as envisaged under Section 37 of the NDPS
Act that he had not committed an offence and was not
likely to commit an offence cannot be satisfied. Further,
the limitation to grant of bail under Section 37 of the
NDPS Act are in addition to those prescribed under the
Cr.P.C. or any other law in force on the grant of bail.
Thus, a habitual offender is not entitled to the grant of
bail even under the provisions of the Cr.P.C. keeping in
view his criminal antecedents. On the contrary, in such
case, where anticipatory bail is sought the custodial
interrogation is certainly necessary even though the
accused may have joined investigation at an earlier
stage.
PARUL
2026.07.28 17:09
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this document/order
19CRM-M-21863-2026 (O&M) and
CRM-M-21876-2026 (O&M)
16. Keeping in view the conduct of the petitioner and
his criminal antecedents, his custodial interrogation
would certainly be necessary to effect recoveries and to
take the investigation to its logical conclusion.
17. In view of the above, I find no merit in the present
petition. Therefore, the same stands dismissed.”
17. Coming to the merits of the case, learned counsel for the NCB
has clarified that the seizures effected in NCB Crime No. 08 include 2.950
kg of Opium, 5.504 kg of Methamphetamine, and 8.740 kg of Heroin–
all falling within the statutory threshold of commercial quantity.
Consequently, the strict bar under Section 37 of the NDPS Act, 1985
squarely applies, dis-entitling the petitioner to seek the concession of pre-
arrest bail. Moreso, the petitioner’s implication is not solely based on
custodial disclosure statements. It is contended that these disclosures do not
stand in isolation, as cogent digital evidence recovered from Nishan Singh’s
mobile phone and nexus between the petitioner and the co-accused around
the relevant period, including the secret meeting dated 06.03.2026 held at
the residence of Paramjit Singh @ Pamma, corroborates the pivotal role
played by the petitioner in the commission of the alleged offence.
18. Learned counsel for the NCB asserted that the petitioner is the
mastermind behind the drug cartel. The accumulation of immense wealth
far exceeding his known sources of income directly establishes his
PARUL
2026.07.28 17:09
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this document/order
20
CRM-M-21863-2026 (O&M) and
CRM-M-21876-2026 (O&M)
involvement and the utilization of illicit drug money. Heavy reliance was
placed on the property transactions, including the acquisition of land from
co-accused Nishan Singh @ Shana and others, clearly point towards
financial nexus and money laundering originating from illicit drug
proceeds. He further submits that although the attachment of the said piece
of 03 kanals land purchased from Nishan Singh @ Shana was not
confirmed by the competent authority but at the same time, two properties
ad-measuring 93 kanals 11 marlas acquired in the name of petitioner’s
mother beyond her known-source of incomes as well as two motor vehicles
belonging to the petitioner were attached as being disproportionate to any
legitimate income. During the course of arguments, it has also been brought
on record that in fact, certain more properties have also been attached by
the Authorities.
19. As regard the allegation that the Investigating Officer has
threatened the petitioner’s family with dire consequences, it has been
submitted that the Authorities had gone to the house of the petitioner to
comply with the provisions of law and serve him a notice under Section 67
of NDPS. The video being now played is a partial communication. It is
submitted that even for the sake of arguments, it is presumed that certain
words have been uttered by the Investigating Officer, the same could have
been an outcome of a sudden heat of the moment and there is no
PARUL
2026.07.28 17:09
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this document/order
21
CRM-M-21863-2026 (O&M) and
CRM-M-21876-2026 (O&M)
harassment. However, learned counsel has fairly submitted that he will
ensure that the officer proceeds in the matter strictly in accordance with the
book of the law.
20. To substantiate his contentions, learned counsel emphasized
that the custodial interrogation of the petitioner is indispensable to unearth
the entire chain of transactions and break the cartel.
21. In rebuttal, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner submits
that the rigors of Samarth Kumar (supra), to his understanding have been
diluted in the subsequent orders passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in
the case of “Vijay Singh Vs. State of Haryana“, 2023 SCC Online SC
1235, which reads as under:
“The petitioner is alleged to have committed
offences under Sections 15 and 29 the Narcotic Drugs
and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter
called the ‘NDPS Act‘). His application for anticipatory
bail was rejected by the High Court. The allegations in
the FIR are that 1.7 Kg of Poppy Straw (Doda Post) was
recovered from the co-accused. The petitioner
concededly was not present at the spot but was named
by the co-accused. That apart there is no other material
to implicate the petitioner. The prosecution urges that
another case with allegations of commission of offence
under NDPS Act are pending against the petitioner. It isPARUL
2026.07.28 17:09
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this document/order
22CRM-M-21863-2026 (O&M) and
CRM-M-21876-2026 (O&M)
not denied that in those proceedings he was granted
bail.
2. Having regard to these circumstances, the
petitioner is directed to the enlarged on anticipatory
bail, subject to such terms and conditions as the trial
Court may impose.
3. The petition is allowed.
4. All pending applications are disposed of.”
22. Learned Senior counsel for the petitioner re-iterates that the
petitioner is being made a scapegoat and is ready to join investigation, the
recoveries have already been effected and the property is already stands
attached by the competent authority and no useful purpose would be served
by the custodial interrogation of the petitioner who is ready to join the
investigation and cooperate with the Investigating Agency.
23. Heard learned counsel for the parties at length and perused the
record.
24. This Court takes judicial notice of the alarming magnitude and
pervasive spread of the drug menace, particularly in the sensitive border
regions of the State. The unabated influx of heavy commercial quantities of
psychotropic substances across international borders poses an existential
threat to public health, national security, and the socio-economic fabric of
society, destroying entire generations of youth. Clandestine narco-
syndicates operating in these vulnerable border belts exploit geographical
PARUL
2026.07.28 17:09
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this document/order
23
CRM-M-21863-2026 (O&M) and
CRM-M-21876-2026 (O&M)
proximity to run deeply entrenched supply chains and launder illicit
proceeds.
25. When dealing with cases emanating from such border-centric
drug cartels–especially those involving commercial quantities of
contraband and organized networks–the Courts are duty-bound to exercise
heightened circumspection and strict scrutiny. In such matters, individual
liberty must be carefully balanced against the overriding societal interest,
ensuring that the stringent statutory mandate and legislative intent behind
Section 37 of the NDPS Act are strictly upheld to prevent the frustration of
ongoing investigations.
26. It cannot be lost sight of the fact that while dealing with the
investigation of such kind and the intelligent and disciplined criminals who
execute such offences, it is likely to have some minor discrepancies. The
Court cannot lose sight of the fact that the drug menace in the State of
Punjab is at its peak and the larger aspect has to be seen for which thorough
investigation is required. NCB is a specialized Authority to look into such
crimes, however, certain minor lapses cannot form basis to make the
petitioner entitled for grant the extra-ordinary concession of anticipatory
bail. It is duly recorded here that the above observation does not give a
clean chit to the Authorities to violate the provisions of law with any
impunity. The Authorities, if find, that the Officer has not acted in
PARUL
2026.07.28 17:09
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this document/order
24
CRM-M-21863-2026 (O&M) and
CRM-M-21876-2026 (O&M)
accordance with law will be at liberty to take appropriate steps against him.
However, at this stage; the said issue is left open.
27. It would be apposite to refer herein to the judgment of the
Hon’ble Supreme Court titled as “Kishor Vishwasrao Patil vs. Deepak
Yashwant Patil and another” passed in SLP(Crl.) No. 1125-2022, relevant
whereof reads as under:
“74. Ordinarily, arrest is a part of the process of the
investigation intended to secure several purposes. There
may be circumstances in which the accused may provide
information leading to discovery of material facts and
relevant information. Grant of anticipatory bail may
hamper the investigation. Pre-arrest bail is to strike a
balance between the individual’s right to personal
freedom and the right of the investigating agency to
interrogate the accused as to the material so far
collected and to collect more information which may
lead to recovery of relevant information. In State v. Anil
Sharma [State v. Anil Sharma, (1997) 7 SCC 187 :
1997 SCC (Cri) 1039], the Supreme Court held as under
: (SCC p. 189, para 6)
“6. We find force in the submission of CBI that custodial
interrogation is qualitatively more elicitation-oriented
than questioning a suspect who is well-ensconced with a
favourable order under Section 438 of the Code. In a
case like this, effective interrogation of a suspected
person is of tremendous advantage in disinterring manyPARUL
2026.07.28 17:09
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this document/order
25CRM-M-21863-2026 (O&M) and
CRM-M-21876-2026 (O&M)
useful informations and also materials which would
have been concealed. Success in such interrogation
would elude if the suspected person knows that he is
well protected and insulated by a pre-arrest bail order
during the time he is interrogated. Very often
interrogation in such a condition would reduce to a
mere ritual. The argument that the custodial
interrogation is fraught with the danger of the person
being subjected to third-degree methods need not be
countenanced, for, such an argument can be advanced
by all accused in all criminal cases. The Court has to
presume that responsible police officers would conduct
themselves in a responsible manner and that those
entrusted with the task of disinterring offences would
not conduct themselves as offenders.”
75. Observing that the arrest is a part of the
investigation intended to secure several purposes, in
Adri Dharan Das v. State of W.B. [Adri Dharan Das v.
State of W.B., (2005) 4 SCC 303 : 2005 SCC (Cri) 933]
, it was held as under : (SCC p. 313, para 19)
“19. Ordinarily, arrest is a part of the process of
investigation intended to secure several purposes. The
accused may have to be questioned in detail regarding
various facets of motive, preparation, commission and
aftermath of the crime and the connection of other
persons, if any, in the crime. There may be
circumstances in which the accused may provide
information leading to discovery of material facts. It
may be necessary to curtail his freedom in order to
PARUL
2026.07.28 17:09
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this document/order
26
CRM-M-21863-2026 (O&M) and
CRM-M-21876-2026 (O&M)
enable the investigation to proceed without hindrance
and to protect witnesses and persons connected with the
victim of the crime, to prevent his disappearance, to
maintain law and order in the locality. For these or
other reasons, arrest may become an inevitable part of
the process of investigation. The legality of the proposed
arrest cannot be gone into in an application under
Section 438 of the Code. The role of the investigator is
well defined and the jurisdictional scope of interference
by the court in the process of investigation is limited.
The court ordinarily will not interfere with the
investigation of a crime or with the arrest of the accused
in a cognizable offence. An interim order restraining
arrest, if passed while dealing with an application under
Section 438 of the Code will amount to interference in
the investigation, which cannot, at any rate, be done
under Section 438 of the Code.”
76. In Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre v. State of
Maharashtra [Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre v. State
of Maharashtra, (2011) 1 SCC 694 : (2011) 1 SCC
(Cri) 514], the Supreme Court laid down the factors and
parameters to be considered while dealing with
anticipatory bail. It was held that the nature and the
gravity of the accusation and the exact role of the
accused must be properly comprehended before arrest is
made and that the court must evaluate the available
material against the accused very carefully. It was also
held that the court should also consider whether the
PARUL
2026.07.28 17:09
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this document/order
27
CRM-M-21863-2026 (O&M) and
CRM-M-21876-2026 (O&M)
accusations have been made only with the object of
injuring or humiliating the applicant by arresting him or
her.
77. After referring to Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre
[Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre v. Stae of
Maharashtra, (2011) 1 SCC 694 : (2011) 1 SCC (Cri)
514] and other judgments and observing that
anticipatory bail can be granted only in exceptional
circumstances, in Jai Prakash Singh v. State of Bihar
[Jai Prakash Singh v. State of Bihar, (2012) 4 SCC
379 : (2012) 2 SCC (Cri) 468], the Supreme Court held
as under : (SCC p. 386, para 19)
“19. Parameters for grant of anticipatory bail in a
serious offence are required to be satisfied and further
while granting such relief, the court must record the
reasons therefor. Anticipatory bail can be granted only
in exceptional circumstances where the court is prima
facie of the view that the applicant has falsely been
enroped in the crime and would not misuse his liberty.
(See D.K. Ganesh Babu v. P.T. Manokaran [D.K.
Ganesh Babu v. P.T. Manokaran, (2007) 4 SCC 434 :
(2007) 2 SCC (Cri) 345] , State of Maharashtra v.
Mohd. Sajid Husain Mohd. S. Husain [State of
Maharashtra v. Mohd. Sajid Husain Mohd. S. Husain,
(2008) 1 SCC 213 : (2008) 1 SCC (Cri) 176] and Union
of India v. Padam Narain Aggarwal [Union of India v.
Padam Narain Aggarwal, (2008) 13 SCC 305 : (2009)
1 SCC (Cri) 1] .)”
Economic offences
PARUL
2026.07.28 17:09
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this document/order
28CRM-M-21863-2026 (O&M) and
CRM-M-21876-2026 (O&M)
78. Power under Section 438 Cr.P.C. being an
extraordinary remedy, has to be exercised sparingly;
more so, in cases of economic offences. Economic
offences stand as a different class as they affect the
economic fabric of the society. In Directorate of
Enforcement v. Ashok Kumar Jain [Directorate of
Enforcement v. Ashok Kumar Jain, (1998) 2 SCC
105 : 1998 SCC (Cri) 510], it was held that in economic
offences, the accused is not entitled to anticipatory
bail.”
15. In Sushila Agrawal and others v. State (NCT of
Delhi and another reported in (2020) 5 SCC 1,
Constitution Bench of this Court held that while
considering an application for grant of pre-arrest bail
the Court has to consider the nature of the offence, the
role of the person, the likelihood of his influencing the
course of investigation, or tampering with evidence or
likelihood of fleeing justice. The Court held:-
“92.4. Courts ought to be generally guided by
considerations such as the nature and gravity of the
offences, the role attributed to the applicant, and the
facts of the case, while considering whether to grant
anticipatory bail, or refuse it. Whether to grant or not is
a matter of discretion; equally whether and if so, what
kind of special conditions are to be imposed (or not
imposed) are dependent on facts of the case, and subject
to the discretion of the court.”
PARUL
2026.07.28 17:09
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this document/order
29
CRM-M-21863-2026 (O&M) and
CRM-M-21876-2026 (O&M)
28. Considering all the above submissions and documents placed
on record, the custodial interrogation of the petitioner is of utmost
importance especially in light of the facts that there is huge cache of drugs
being recovered which is linked to the petitioner and other co-accused and
there is specific allegation that the petitioner had facilitated the lifting of the
entire illegal cross-border drugs consignment; his previous criminal
antecedents under the NDPS Act; close acquaintance of the petitioner with
the other co-accused and further to unearth the entire financial trail,
conspiracy and the nexus of all nominated accused with the cross border
smuggling of drugs. In a crime such as being investigated by the NCB and
the prima facie role being attributed to the petitioner makes it incumbent
that his custodial interrogation will be of extreme importance.
29. The reliance placed by learned Senior Counsel for the
petitioner on Ravinder Singh @ Ravi (supra) is wholly misplaced. The said
precedent pertained to concession of regular bail involving a quantity
barely exceeding the commercial threshold. In contrast, the present case
seeking concession of anticipatory bail and a massive recovery of diverse
narcotics– 2.950 kg of Opium, 5.504 kg of Methamphetamine, and
8.740 kg of Heroin in NCB No. 08 dated 15.02.2026 and 9.332 kgs of
heroin in NCB No. 14 dated 11.03.2026, is pointing toward an organized
cross-border drug syndicate. Thus, the ratio of the aforesaid judgments is
clearly distinguishable on facts and does not advance the case of the
PARUL
2026.07.28 17:09
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this document/order
30
CRM-M-21863-2026 (O&M) and
CRM-M-21876-2026 (O&M)
petitioner. In Abu Thahir @ Abdu (supra), Lovepreet Singh @ Love
(supra), Balwinder Kaur (supra) and Divyansh Singh (supra), the
recoveries involved 510 grams of methamphetamine, 210 grams of heroin,
450.9 grams of heroin and 1.7 kilograms of poppy straw, respectively. In
the present case, huge quantities of opium, methamphetamine, and heroin
were allegedly recovered. Likewise, in Manohar Singh (supra), the
appellant had no criminal antecedents, whereas the petitioner herein is
stated to be involved in two other FIRs. Similarly, in Jugraj Singh (supra),
the Hon’ble Supreme Court noticed that no effort had been made by the
investigating agency to trace the appellant’s mobile number, collect the call
detail records or conduct any raid to ascertain his possession of
incriminating material. In contrast, the present case is supported by call
detail records and other digital evidence, which prima facie connect the
petitioner with the disclosure statement. Accordingly, the aforesaid
precedents are clearly distinguishable and are of no assistance to the
petitioner. The considerations for pre-arrest bail, where custodial
interrogation is crucial to unraveling a complex narco-network and
financial trail, stand on a completely different footing.
30. Accordingly, the custodial interrogation of the petitioner
would be of grave importance, at this stage, to ensure that the investigation
in this case comes to its logical end.
PARUL
2026.07.28 17:09
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this document/order
31
CRM-M-21863-2026 (O&M) and
CRM-M-21876-2026 (O&M)
31. In light of the above, this Court does not find any ground to
grant the extra ordinary concession of anticipatory bail to the petitioner,
hence, the present petitions are dismissed.
32. It is made clear that any observation made in this order is only
for the purpose of deciding the present petitions and shall not be considered
as any expression of opinion on the merits of the case.
33 Pending application(s) if any, shall stand disposed of.
34. Photocopy of this order be placed on the file of another
connected case.
(ALOK JAIN)
JUDGE
27.07.2026
Parul
Whether speaking/reasoned:- Yes
Whether Reportable:- Yes
PARUL
2026.07.28 17:09
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this document/order
