Punjab & Haryana High Court denies anticipatory bail in NDPS case based on CDR corroboration and supplier role

Case Name: Raju v. State of Haryana
Date of Judgment: October 08, 2025
Citation: CRM-M-33264-2025
Bench: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sumeet Goel

Held: The High Court dismissed the petitioner’s plea for anticipatory/pre-arrest bail in an FIR under Section 18 of the NDPS Act, noting prima facie material showing his role as a supplier and emphasizing that custodial interrogation was indispensable to probe the larger supply chain; the Court also adverted to the Section 37 bar and relied on the principle that custodial interrogation is qualitatively more effective (State v. Anil Sharma).

Summary: Acting on specific information, the Crime Branch apprehended co-accused Rajiv @ Ajay and Rakesh at Parakeet Pipli bus stop, Kurukshetra, and recovered 2 kg 620 g of opium from them. During investigation, Rajiv @ Ajay disclosed that the contraband had been supplied by the petitioner, Raju. The State produced a status report/affidavit showing 89 calls exchanged between the petitioner’s number and Rajiv’s number prior to the recovery, asserting this CDR trail corroborated the disclosure and indicated the petitioner’s supplier role. The defence argued that the petitioner was not named in the FIR, nothing was recovered from him, the case against him rested only on inadmissible disclosure, and custodial interrogation was unnecessary.

Decision: The Court held that the petitioner’s name surfaced not merely from a “bald disclosure” but stood corroborated by independent CDR material evidencing frequent, proximate contact with the co-accused; coupled with the gravity of the offence, alleged antecedents, and the need to unearth the wider nexus, anticipatory bail would impede effective investigation. Finding reasonable grounds to believe the petitioner was connected with the offence and invoking Section 37 considerations, the Court dismissed the petition, clarifying that nothing stated would affect the merits at trial.