Anticipatory Bail Denied in NDPS Case: Punjab & Haryana HC Cites Commercial Quantity and Need for Custodial Interrogation
Case Name: Sajan Singh v. State of Punjab
Date of Judgment: 07 April 2026
Citation: CRM-M-18902-2026
Bench: Justice Rajesh Bhardwaj
Held: The Punjab and Haryana High Court denied anticipatory bail in an NDPS case involving commercial quantity of contraband, holding that disclosure statements, call records, and the need for custodial interrogation justified rejection of pre-arrest bail.
Summary: The petitioner sought anticipatory bail in FIR No. 182 dated 05.07.2025 registered under provisions of the NDPS Act and Arms Act at Police Station ANTF, SAS Nagar. The case arose from a raid conducted on secret information, leading to the arrest of co-accused Simranjit Singh @ Sunny, from whom 1.6 kilograms of heroin, a country-made pistol, and drug money were recovered.
During investigation, the co-accused made a disclosure statement alleging that the contraband and weapon had been supplied by the petitioner. On this basis, the petitioner was arrayed as an accused. His earlier bail application before the Special Court had already been dismissed.
The petitioner argued that he had been falsely implicated solely on the basis of a disclosure statement, which is not admissible evidence. It was further contended that no recovery had been effected from him and there was no direct evidence linking him to the alleged offence.
The State opposed the bail, highlighting that the recovered contraband constituted commercial quantity, thereby attracting the rigours of Section 37 of the NDPS Act. It was further submitted that call detail records established contact between the petitioner and the co-accused, and custodial interrogation was necessary to uncover the broader drug network and supply chain.
Decision: The Court dismissed the anticipatory bail petition, observing that the allegations involved serious offences under the NDPS Act with recovery of commercial quantity of contraband. It held that the disclosure statement of the co-accused, coupled with supporting material such as call detail records, prima facie established the petitioner’s involvement. The Court emphasized that custodial interrogation was essential to trace the source and network of drug supply, and granting anticipatory bail at this stage would impede the investigation. Relying on settled principles governing anticipatory bail, including the need to consider gravity of offence and societal impact, the Court concluded that no extraordinary circumstances existed to justify exercise of such discretion.