Ravi Singh vs State of Haryana

Sukhvinder Kaur, J

Prayer in the present petition, filed under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, is for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner in FIR No.387 dated 16.05.2025, under Section 21(b) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as – NDPS Act), registered at Police Station Sadar Hisar, District Hisar.

The aforesaid FIR was got registered on 16.05.2025 by ASI Chandveer Singh, stating therein that two persons namely Govinda (son of Gurnam Singh) and Govinda (son of Prem Singh) were apprehended by him on the basis of secret information that they were carrying intoxicant substance with them and if raid was conducted at that time, they could be apprehended. Believing the information to be true, the police apprehended them and 7.12 grams of heroin was recovered from the pocket of jeans  of aforesaid Govinda son of Prem Singh. During investigation, aforesaid accused Govinda son of Prem Singh made a disclosure statement before the police that the petitioner Ravi Singh had supplied the said heroin to him. On the basis of this disclosure statement, the present petitioner was nominated as accused in the present FIR.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case, only on the basis of disclosure statement of the co-accused, which is not admissible in law. He was neither named in the FIR nor was present at the spot. No contraband was recovered from the petitioner. No material has been placed on record to link the petitioner with smuggling/recovery of contraband. He further urged that custodial interrogation of the petitioner is not required for any purpose. The petitioner is ready and willing to join the investigation and he be granted concession of anticipatory bail.

Learned State counsel, on the other hand, has opposed the present bail petition while contending that though it is apparent that the alleged recovery of contraband was not effected from the petitioner, but as per disclosure statement of co-accused, the petitioner was actively indulged in sale and purchase of contraband. So, the role attributed to the petitioner is no less than that of co-accused. So, in order to unearth the details of chain of supply, custodial interrogation of the petitioner is required and if concession of anticipatory bail is granted to the petitioner, it may result in hampering the investigation.

Heard.

Petitioner had not been named in the FIR. His name surfaced in the present case only on the basis of disclosure statement of co-accused, who alleged that he had purchased 08 grams of heroin from the petitioner. The alleged recovery effected in the present case is from the co-accused, which falls within the intermediate quantity. Except the disclosure statement, there is nothing on record to connect the petitioner with the offence in the present case. The alleged recovery has already been effected and now, nothing is to be recovered from the petitioner. So, no useful purpose would be served by sending the petitioner behind the bars.

Accordingly, without commenting on the merits of the case, the present petition is allowed. In the event of arrest, the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail, on furnishing bail/surety bonds, to the satisfaction of the Arresting Officer/Investigating Officer, subject to the conditions, as provided under Section 482(2) of BNSS. It will be open for the Investigating Officer to call the petitioner to join investigation, if so required, by issuing a written notice in this regard. The petitioner shall also abide by the conditions mentioned in Section 482(2) of the BNSS.

However, nothing observed herein above shall be construed to be an expression of opinion on the merits of the case. The observations recorded above are only for the purpose of deciding the present bail petition.

Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of along with the present petition.