Manjot Singh @ Jota Vs State of Haryana

Prayer in this petition, filed under Section 482 of the BNSS, 2023 (earlier Section 438 Cr.P.C.), is for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner, who has been booked in a criminal case arising out of in FIR No.13 dated 11.01.2025, registered under Section 15 of NDPS Act (Section 29 of NDPS Act was added later on) at Police Station Sadar Pehowa, District Kurukshetra.

¶16

On the basis of secret information, accused-Gursewak Singh was arrested, with the allegation that, he was driving truck No. PB23-T-4945 on NH152 and from the body of that truck, 07 bags of poppy husk, total weighing 101 Kg 87 grams were recovered.

¶17

As per case of the prosecution, after arrest of co-accused Gursewak Singh, he disclosed that said contraband was meant to be delivered to the present

¶18

REENA 2026.07.03 09:58 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh

¶19

CRM-M-12676-2025

¶20

petitioner – Manjot Singh @ Jota. This is how petitioner was made accused in the present case also.

¶21

Learned counsel for the petitioner argues that petitioner has nothing to do with the contraband, recovered from the truck driven by co-accused-Gursewak Singh. He further submits that, except of disclosure statement there is no other connecting/corroborative evidence with the prosecution to make the allegations believable. It is also submitted that had there been any truth in the allegation, police would have laid a trap at the time of scheduled delivery of the contraband to the petitioner.

¶22

He further argues that financial transactions and telephonic conversations between the petitioner and the co-accused-Gursewak Singh occured simply because both individuals reside in the same village. He further submits that petitioner is ready to submit himself for joining investigation, if protected from arrest.

¶23

On the other hand learned State counsel argues that the call details furnished from 16.04.2024 to 07.01.2025, clearly indicate that petitioner and coaccused Gursewak Singh were in regular contact. Apart from this, a sum of Rs. 36,500/- was transferred through Google Pay by the petitioner in the account of co-accused Gursewak Singh.

¶24

Responding to the said contention, counsel for the petitioner submits that the necessary explanation would be provided by the petitioner during the course of trial, as furnishing complete details, this stage may prejudice his right of defence.

¶25

Considering all the submissions having been mentioned hereabove

¶26

REENA and coupled with the fact that the recovery of poppy husk has already been 2026.07.03 09:58 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh

¶27

CRM-M-12676-2025

¶28

effected and infact Petitioner is implicated only on the basis of disclosure statement, therefore, this Court do not find any substantial reason for subjecting the petitioner for custodial interrogation.

¶29

Accordingly, petitioner is directed to join the investigation within two weeks from today, or as and when called by the investigating agency, and in the eventuality of the arrest, petitioner would be released on anticipatory bail, subject to his furnishing bail bonds to the satisfaction of the Arresting Officer. The petitioner shall also be abide by all the conditions laid down under Section 482(2) of BNSS, 2023 (earlier Section 438(2) Cr.P.C.).

¶30

Besides, it is directed that petitioner would hand over his passport to the Investigating Agency or to Court concerned, if he possesses. Otherwise, would submit an affidavit, disclosing the fact that he does not possess any passport.

¶31

It is also directed that before leaving country any time during trial, petitioners would seek prior permission of the Court.

¶32

However, it is clarified that if the petitioner fails to join and cooperate with the investigation, in terms of directions mentioned in the present order, it shall be open for the Investigating Officer to proceed immediately to arrest the petitioner, in accordance with law.

¶33

With the directions issued here above, present petition stands disposed of.

¶34

(SANJAY VASHISTH) 01.07.2026 JUDGE

¶35

reena

¶36

Whether Speaking/Reasoned: YES/ NO Whether Reportable: YES /NO

¶37

REENA 2026.07.03 09:58 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh

Manjot Singh @ Jota v. State of Haryana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Manjot Singh @ Jota v. State of Haryana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Lakhbir Singh Vs Sandeep Singh

Amar Nath and Another Vs State of Haryana and Others

Madhvinder Singh Vs State of Punjab and Others

Ravi Kumar Vs State of Haryana and Others

Vijay Lathwal Vs State of Punjab

Gurpreet Kaur Vs State of Punjab