Dismissed¶¶29

Riyaz v. State of Haryana

Punjab & Haryana HC14 Jul 2025CRM-M/5663/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Anticipatory bail refused; Section 482 BNSS 2023; NDPS Act Sections 21(b), 29; FIR No.440 dated 23.10.2024 PS Gandhi Nagar Yamuna Nagar; 11 grams heroin non-commercial quantity; co-accused Rahul alias Kaka; disclosure statement inadmissibility Section 25 Indian Evidence Act; CDRs 34 calls 23.08.2024 to 23.10.2024; supply chain nexus; prior NDPS case FIR No.341 dated 07.07.2023 misuse of bail; non-cooperation with investigation; custodial interrogation; interim order 31.01.2025; High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh; CRM-M-5663-2025; Manjari Nehru Kaul, J.; petition dismissed 14.07.2025; observations not on merits.

What did the court decide?

The gravity of an NDPS offence cannot be assessed solely on the basis that the recovered quantity falls within the non-commercial category; the Act treats all offences with a high degree of seriousness.

Riyaz Vs State of Haryana — Narcotics (NDPS) | Punjab & Haryana HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶¶29

Issue for consideration

Whether the petitioner, implicated in FIR No.440 dated 23.10.2024 (Sections 21(b), 29 NDPS Act) through a co-accused's disclosure statement and CDRs rather than any direct recovery, deserves the concession of anticipatory bail under Section 482 of BNSS, 2023, given the non-commercial quantity involved, his prior NDPS case, and his alleged non-cooperation with investigation. +1 more

¶¶13

Court's answer

¶¶22

Ratio / Principle

Involvement of a person in multiple cases under the NDPS Act calls for heightened scrutiny by this Court while considering bail.

¶¶22

Key takeaways

The fact that the present offence is alleged to have been committed while the petitioner was already on bail in a prior NDPS case reflects a prima facie pattern of continued disregard for the law and cannot be ignored at this stage.ratio¶¶23
Although no contraband was directly recovered from the petitioner, the repeated and close telephonic contact between him and the co-accused evident from the CDRs provides a prima facie link that cannot be ignored at this stage, and his alleged non-cooperation, evasiveness about his mobile phone and possible monetary gains from drug trafficking further compound the suspicion against him.ratio¶¶27

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Punjab and Haryana High Court (Manjari Nehru Kaul, J.) dismisses an application under Section 482 of BNSS, 2023 for anticipatory bail in FIR No.440 dated 23.10.2024, Police Station Gandhi Nagar, Yamuna Nagar, under Sections 21(b) and 29 of the NDPS Act, 1985. The 11 grams of heroin recovered was non-commercial and was recovered from co-accused Rahul alias Kaka; the petitioner, not named in the FIR, was implicated on the strength of the co-accused's disclosure statement (contended to be inadmissible under Section 25 of the Indian Evidence Act) and CDRs showing 34 calls exchanged with the co-accused between 23.08.2024 and 23.10.2024. Holding that the gravity of an NDPS offence cannot be assessed solely on quantity, that involvement in multiple NDPS cases warrants heightened scrutiny, and noting that the offence was allegedly committed while the petitioner was already on bail in FIR No.341 dated 07.07.2023, with CDRs furnishing a prima facie link and custodial interrogation being necessary, the Court declined the extraordinary concession of anticipatory bail and dismissed the petition, clarifying that its observations were not an expression of opinion on the merits.

¶1

220. IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶2

CRM-M-5663-2025 Date of decision: 14.07.2025

Riyaz

.... Petitioner

Versus

State of Ha r yana

.... Respondent

CORAM: HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANJARI NEHRU KAUL

¶9

Present: Mr. Molly Tarunima Tagore, A dvocate, for the petitioner.

¶10

Mr. Rajat Gautam, Addl. A.G., Haryana.

¶11

¶12

MANJARI NEHRU KAUL, J. (ORAL)

¶13

The petitioner is seeking the concession of anticipatory bai l under Secti o n 482 of BNSS, 2023, in case FIR No.440, dated 23.10.2024 , under Secti o ns 21(b), 29 of NDPS Act, 1 9 85, registered at Police Statio n Gandhi Na g ar, Yamuna Nagar.

¶14

Learned counsel for the pet i tioner has contended that th e petitioner h as been falsely implicated in the instant case. It has bee n submitted t hat the recovery in question is of non-commercial quantit y (11 grams of heroin), and that no recov e ry has been effected from th e petitioner. A ttention has also been drawn to the FIR (Annexure P-1), t o emphasise t hat the petitioner has not been n amed therein. Learned counse l has further u rged that the petitioner’s subse q uent implication in the present

¶15

SANJEEV KUMAR 2025.07.15 13:01 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶16

CRM-M-5663-2025 - 2 -

¶17

case is solely on the basis of a disclosure statement made by co-accused, Rahul alias Kaka, from whom, the contraband was purportedly recovered. Learned counsel has also submitted that such disclosure statements, being inadmissible under Section 25 of the Indian Evidence Act, cannot form the foundation for implicating the petitioner. It has still further been contended that the call detail records (CDRs), relied upon by the Investigating Agency, do not disclose any incriminating material, nor is there any specific overt act attributed to the petitioner. It has lastly been contended by the learned counsel that since the petitioner has complied with the order dated 31.01.2025 and joined investigation, the said order be made absolute. 3. Per contra , learned State counsel, while opposing the prayer and submissions made by the counsel opposite, on instructions, has submitted that the petitioner has failed to cooperate with the Investigating Agency and has been totally evasive during investigation and, therefore, his custodial interrogation is required. It has still been submitted that the petitioner is not a first-time offender but has previously been implicated in FIR No.341, dated 07.07.2023 under similar provisions of the NDPS Act, wherein he is presently on bail. It has been asserted by the learned State counsel that the petitioner has clearly misused the concession of bail which was granted to him in FIR No.341, dated 07.07.2023 and, therefore, on this ground also, he does not deserve the concession of bail. Furthermore, it has been submitted by the learned State counsel that besides non-cooperation by the petitioner with the Investigating Agency, the CDRs reveal frequent and sustained communication between the petitioner and co-accused, Rahul

¶18

SANJEEV KUMAR 2025.07.15 13:01 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶19

CRM-M-5663-2025 - 3 -

¶20

alias Kaka, with as many as 34 calls exchanged between 23.08.2024 and 23.10.2024. This, as per the learned State counsel, strongly corroborates the role of the petitioner in the supply chain of the contraband. Therefore, a prayer has been made for dismissal of the instant petition as the custodial interrogation of the petitioner could lead to unearthing the broader nexus involved in the narcotic traits.

¶21

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material placed on record.

¶22

At the outset, it may be pointed out that while the quantity of contraband recovered in the present case indeed falls within the noncommercial quantity, the gravity of the offence cannot be assessed solely on that basis. The NDPS Act treats all offences with a high degree of seriousness, and the involvement of a person in multiple cases under the Act calls for heightened scrutiny by this Court.

¶23

Admittedly, the petitioner is already facing prosecution in FIR No.341, dated 07.07.2023 under similar provisions of the NDPS Act. The fact that the present offence is alleged to have been committed while the petitioner was already on bail cannot be ignored at this stage. It reflects a prima facie pattern of continued disregard for the law.

¶24

Moreover, the petitioner’s implication in the present case, although not supported by direct recovery of any contraband, is not without circumstantial support. The repeated and close telephonic contact between the petitioner and the co-accused, as is evident from the CDRs, provides a

¶25

SANJEEV KUMAR 2025.07.15 13:01 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶26

CRM-M-5663-2025 - 4 -

¶27

prima facie link that cannot be ignored at this stage. The alleged noncooperation by the petitioner with the investigation and evasiveness in disclosing critical information, and the whereabouts of his mobile phone and possible monetary gains from drug trafficking, further compounds the suspicion against him.

¶28

In the present case, given the antecedents of the petitioner, repeated involvement in narcotic offences, and the necessity of custodial interrogation for effective investigation, this Court does not deem it fit to extend the extraordinary concession of anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

¶29

Present petition stands dismissed accordingly.

¶30

However, it is made clear that anything observed hereinabove shall not be construed to be an expression of opinion on the merits of the case.

¶31

(MAN	JARI NEHRU KAUL) JUDGE
July 14, 2025
sanjeev
Whether speaking/reasoned:	Yes/No
Whether reportable:	Yes/No

¶32

SANJEEV KUMAR 2025.07.15 13:01 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

Riyaz v. State of Haryana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Riyaz v. State of Haryana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sawan Vs State of Haryana

Kala Singh Vs Central Bureau of Narcotics

Paramjeet Singh Vs State of Haryana

Manpreet Kaur Vs State of Punjab

Jitender Mandal and Others Vs State of Haryana and Another

Gaurav Arora Vs State of Punjab