The High Court reaffirmed that anticipatory bail under Section 482 BNSS in cases involving commercial quantity under NDPS Act can be declined where allegations are grave, recovery is substantial, and custodial interrogation is required—even if the accused is implicated only through a co-accused’s disclosure. The Court followed the Supreme Court’s clarification that the ratio of Tofan Singh does not aid at the anticipatory bail stage. This remains a binding clarification for similar NDPS prosecutions.
Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Case Name | CRM-M/35239/2025 of HARCHAND SINGH Vs STATE OF PUNJAB |
| CNR | PHHC011005252025 |
| Date of Registration | 05-07-2025 |
| Decision Date | 30-10-2025 |
| Disposal Nature | DISMISSED |
| Judgment Author | MRS. JUSTICE MANISHA BATRA |
| Court | High Court of Punjab and Haryana |
| Precedent Value | Binding on subordinate courts in Punjab and Haryana; persuasive for other High Courts |
| Overrules / Affirms | Affirms Supreme Court’s ratio in State of Haryana v. Samarth Kumar (2022) regarding role of Tofan Singh |
| Type of Law | Criminal Law—BNSS (Anticipatory Bail), NDPS Act |
| Questions of Law |
|
| Ratio Decidendi |
The Court held that anticipatory bail is not to be granted in commercial quantity NDPS Act cases merely because the accused is implicated on the basis of a disclosure statement by a co-accused, especially where grave allegations and prior similar offences exist. The benefit of the Supreme Court’s ratio in Tofan Singh regarding evidentiary value of disclosure statements is unavailable at the anticipatory bail stage as per State of Haryana v. Samarth Kumar. Anticipatory bail under Section 482 BNSS is reserved for extraordinary and sparing circumstances. The custodial interrogation of the petitioner is essential for recovery and for the progress of effective investigation. |
| Judgments Relied Upon | Tofan Singh v. State of Tamil Nadu (2021) 4 SCC 1; State of Haryana v. Samarth Kumar 2022(3) RCR (Criminal) 991 |
| Logic / Jurisprudence / Authorities Relied Upon by the Court | The court distinguished between regular bail and anticipatory bail, stating that procedural safeguards and evidentiary challenges arise at trial or regular bail stage, not at the interim anticipatory bail stage. The focus at anticipatory bail is on the seriousness of the offence, nature of alleged role, likelihood of tampering or evasion, and need for custodial interrogation. |
| Facts as Summarised by the Court | On 06.05.2025, co-accused were apprehended in a car with 400 grams of heroin (commercial quantity) and during interrogation, disclosed the petitioner as supplier, leading to his being named as accused. The petitioner, with a similar criminal antecedent, sought anticipatory bail after his application was rejected before the Sessions Court. State opposed bail on grounds of gravity, antecedents, and investigation needs. |
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | All subordinate courts in Punjab and Haryana |
| Persuasive For | Other High Courts, especially in similar NDPS/BNSS matters |
| Follows | State of Haryana v. Samarth Kumar (2022), Tofan Singh v. State of Tamil Nadu (2021) |
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- Supreme Court’s Tofan Singh ratio on inadmissibility of disclosure statements is unavailable for anticipatory bail purposes; it applies at regular bail/trial.
- Petitioners sought protection from arrest based solely on disclosure, but the Court declined, emphasizing gravity and need for custodial interrogation in commercial quantity cases.
- The High Court clarified that anticipatory bail under Section 482 BNSS is reserved for “extraordinary and sparing” cases in NDPS matters.
- “Custodial interrogation” is justified for further recovery and investigation despite the accused not being found at the scene or named in the FIR.
- The case affirms and operationalizes Samarth Kumar’s distinction between anticipatory and regular bail stages for NDPS commercial quantity offences.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- The petitioner was named as accused only by virtue of a co-accused’s disclosure statement after recovery of 400 grams of heroin, a commercial quantity.
- The petitioner argued that as per Tofan Singh, such disclosure statements are inadmissible, and no evidence links him otherwise; no recovery is pending, hence no justification for custodial interrogation.
- The State argued that the allegation’s gravity and petitioner’s criminal antecedents require interrogation.
- The Court distinguished anticipatory bail from regular bail and trial, relying on State of Haryana v. Samarth Kumar, which clarified that Tofan Singh’s evidentiary bar on disclosure statements doesn’t prevent custodial interrogation or support anticipatory bail.
- Seriousness of the crime, previous similar offences by the petitioner, and the need for further recovery all weighed against granting bail.
- The Court emphasized that pre-arrest bail under Section 482 BNSS is an extraordinary remedy, not for routine use, especially when investigation may benefit from custodial interrogation.
- The petition was dismissed, with the Court explicitly holding that observations do not touch on final merits of the case.
Arguments by the Parties
Petitioner
- Falsely implicated, neither named in FIR nor apprehended at the spot.
- Involvement based solely on inadmissible disclosure by co-accused.
- No further recovery or custodial interrogation required; willing to join investigation.
- Relied on Tofan Singh (2021) to argue that such disclosure is not evidence.
Respondent (State)
- Gravity of NDPS offences and petitioner’s criminal antecedent require custodial interrogation.
- Anticipatory bail unwarranted due to seriousness of allegations and investigation needs.
Factual Background
On 06.05.2025, police apprehended two co-accused travelling in a car and recovered 400 grams of heroin, constituting commercial quantity under the NDPS Act. Following interrogation, one co-accused named the petitioner as their supplier. This led to his being made an accused. The petitioner’s prior application for anticipatory bail before the Sessions Court was previously dismissed. The petitioner invoked Section 482 BNSS seeking pre-arrest bail, which was opposed by the State for reasons of severity and investigation requirements.
Statutory Analysis
- Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) was invoked for anticipatory bail. The Court held that the provision is to be exercised sparingly and in extraordinary cases.
- Sections 21(c) and 29 of the NDPS Act were cited, relating to punishment for commercial quantity and abetment/conspiracy, respectively.
- The High Court clarified, with reference to Supreme Court’s Samarth Kumar, that the benefit of Tofan Singh on evidentiary inadmissibility of disclosure statements cannot be availed while seeking pre-arrest bail; it applies at regular bail or trial stage.
Alert Indicators
- ✔ Precedent Followed – The High Court affirms and operationalizes Supreme Court’s clarification in State of Haryana v. Samarth Kumar regarding stage-wise applicability of Tofan Singh; reinforces binding precedent.