Disclosure Statement Linking Accused to Drug Supply Network Enough to Deny Anticipatory Bail: P&H High Court
Case Name: Ravindra Singh Saundhiya v. State of Haryana
Date of Judgment: 05 March 2026
Citation: CRM-M-11843-2026
Bench: Justice Sumeet Goel
Held: The Punjab and Haryana High Court held that anticipatory bail cannot be granted in serious offences under the NDPS Act where prima facie material indicates the accused’s involvement in a narcotics supply network and custodial interrogation is necessary to trace the source and wider conspiracy. The Court observed that at the stage of anticipatory bail, the admissibility of disclosure statements cannot be meticulously examined if such statements provide prima facie linkage with the offence.
Summary: The petitioner sought anticipatory bail under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (earlier Section 438 CrPC) in connection with FIR No. 284 dated 11.04.2024 registered at Police Station Asandh, District Karnal for offences under Sections 15, 25, 29 and 27-A of the NDPS Act, 1985.
The case arose after police received secret information that certain individuals were transporting contraband. Acting on the information, the police intercepted vehicle No. HR-45D-2499 and recovered 11 plastic bags containing 110 kilograms of Doda Post (poppy husk) from the occupants Paramjit Singh and Satnam Singh.
During investigation, co-accused Jarnail Singh was arrested and, in his disclosure statement, named the petitioner as the main supplier of the contraband. A raid was conducted at the petitioner’s residence but he could not be apprehended.
The petitioner argued that he had been falsely implicated and was not named in the FIR. It was contended that his involvement was alleged solely on the basis of the disclosure statement of a co-accused, which is not admissible in evidence. The petitioner also submitted that there had been non-compliance with mandatory provisions of the NDPS Act and that no recovery was to be effected from him.
Opposing the plea, the State submitted that a commercial quantity of contraband had been recovered and that the petitioner had been named as the supplier during investigation. It was argued that custodial interrogation was necessary to uncover the larger narcotics network and identify other persons involved in trafficking.
The Court observed that although the petitioner was not named in the FIR, his name surfaced during investigation through the disclosure statement of a co-accused who specifically attributed to him the role of supplier. The Court further noted that the allegations against the petitioner related to criminal conspiracy under Section 29 of the NDPS Act, which does not require physical possession of contraband.
The Court emphasized that the disclosure statement and other material collected during investigation created a prima facie link between the petitioner and the narcotics supply chain. It also noted that custodial interrogation was necessary to trace the origin and network of the contraband and to identify other possible conspirators.
Given the seriousness of the offence, the stage of investigation, and the need to unravel the larger drug trafficking network, the Court held that granting anticipatory bail could hamper the ongoing investigation.
Decision: The Punjab and Haryana High Court dismissed the petition for anticipatory bail, holding that the petitioner did not deserve the concession of pre-arrest bail in view of the gravity of the allegations and the necessity of custodial interrogation for effective investigation.