P&H High Court Refuses Anticipatory Bail in NDPS Case Based on Disclosure and Drone-Based Heroin Smuggling Allegations

Case Name: Jagbir Singh vs. State of Punjab
Date of Judgment: 10 November 2025
Citation: CRM-M-56035-2025
Bench: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sumeet Goel

Held: The Punjab & Haryana High Court refused anticipatory bail to the petitioner. The Court held that the allegations showed involvement in a larger smuggling network. The disclosure statement of the petitioner’s brother indicated that 3 kg of heroin, allegedly smuggled through drones from Pakistan, was handed over to the petitioner for safe custody. The Court found that custodial interrogation was essential to trace the contraband, uncover the supply chain, and identify other actors. The seriousness of the offence, the material collected so far, and potential risk to the investigation made anticipatory bail inappropriate.

Summary: The FIR recorded the recovery of 1.5 kg of heroin from Jodhbir Singh, 540 grams from Buta Singh, and a pistol from Karanbir Singh. The police acted on secret information and apprehended all three men at the spot. During investigation, Jodhbir Singh made a disclosure statement claiming he had received six packets of heroin from Pakistan via drone and had given three kilograms to his brother, the petitioner, Jagbir Singh. The petitioner’s name did not appear in the FIR, and no recovery was made from him. The defence argued that the prosecution relied only on an inadmissible disclosure statement and that the petitioner lived abroad as a carpenter with no criminal history. The State opposed bail, stating that the petitioner was hiding, and argued that the investigation indicated his active role in handling smuggled heroin. The Court noted that the allegations showed a structured drug network. It found that the case required custodial interrogation to verify the disclosure, track the route of the heroin, and identify accomplices. The Court held that granting anticipatory bail could compromise the investigation.

Decision: The Court dismissed the petition. It held that the petitioner did not qualify for anticipatory bail due to the gravity of the offence, the nature of the alleged role, and the need for custodial interrogation to secure the truth. The Court clarified that nothing in the order should influence the investigation or the merits at trial.