Allowed

Surender v. State of Haryana

Punjab & Haryana HC27 Apr 2026CRM-M/3047/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Anticipatory bail petition under Section 482 BNSS for a petitioner implicated in an FIR involving recovery of 1.52 kg ganja from a co-accused. After the petitioner joined investigation and custodial interrogation was no longer required per State counsel, the interim ad-interim bail order was made absolute and the petition disposed of.

What did the court decide?

Ad-interim anticipatory bail order dated 20.01.2026 made absolute; petitioner to join investigation as required and abide by Section 482(2) BNSS conditions.

Surender Vs State of Haryana — Narcotics (NDPS) | Punjab & Haryana HC (2026)

��

��

��

��

��

�� !�"�#$%$ &'��(��(��

)��

***(��$�$ &�+**

,�+%-%

)��

��((((��%. &"�&�

��'��/�0��(��)��)��,�)��)��

¶13

��

¶14

��!"#��$��%��"��&�

¶15

'''''

¶16

)��,�)��)��1��(�2��03

¶17

Prayer in this petition, filed under Section 482 of the BNSS,

¶18

2023 (earlier Section 438 Cr.P.C.), is for grant of anticipatory bail to the peti-

¶19

tioner, who has been booked in a criminal case arising out of First Information Report, as detailed hereunder:-

¶20

Name & age of Peti- tioner (s)	FIR No.	Date	Section(s)	Police Sta- tion	District
Surender, aged about	385	01.10.2025	20(b)/61/85 of NDPS	Agroha	�$%�+
35 years			Act

¶21

On 20.01.2026 following order was passed:-

¶22

1. “Prayer in this petition, filed under Section 482 of the BNSS,

¶23

2023 (earlier Section 438 Cr.P.C.), is for grant of anticipatory bail to the pe-

¶24

JYOTI 2026.04.28 17:41 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶25

��

¶26

��

¶27

titioner, who has been booked in a criminal case arising out of First Infor-

¶28

mation Report, as detailed hereunder:

¶29

Name & age of Peti- tioner (s)	FIR No.	Date	Section(s)	Police Sta- tion	District
Surender,	385	01.10.2025	20(b)/61/85	Agroha	�$%�+
aged about			of NDPS
35 years			Act

¶30

2. As per case of the prosecution, recovery in present case is of 01.52 Kg of ganja, which has been effected from the main accused Sanju.

¶31

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has nothing to do with the alleged recovery and his name has not even been mentioned in the FIR. Petitioner's name surfaced only after arrest of the accused Sanju, which is an inadmissible evidence. However, apart from the disclosure statement of the arrested co-accused, there is no other connecting evidence proving the guilt of the petitioner. Thus, learned counsel for the petitioner prays for grant of concession of anticipatory bail to the petitioner in the present case.

¶32

4. Notice of motion.

¶33

5. On advance notice, Mr. Kanwar Sanjiv Kumar, AAG, Haryana, puts in appearance on behalf of the respondent – State, and seeks some time to file status report in the matter.

¶34

6. Adjourned to 27.04.2026.

¶35

7. Meanwhile, the petitioner is directed to join the investigation as and when required to do so by the Investigating Agency. In the event of his arrest, the petitioner shall be released on ad-interim bail, subject to his furnishing bail bonds to the satisfaction of the Arresting Officer. The petitioner

¶36

JYOTI 2026.04.28 17:41 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶37

��

¶38

��

¶39

shall also abide by all the conditions laid down under Section 482(2) of BNSS, 2023 (earlier Section 438(2) Cr.P.C.).

¶40

8. 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.

¶41

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

¶42

Continuing his submissions, learned counsel for the petitioner contends that in compliance of the order dated 20.01.2026, passed by this Court, petitioner has joined the investigation, and has fully co-operated. Therefore, he prays for confirmation of the said interim anticipatory bail order.

¶43

Learned State counsel on instructions from ASI Nachhater Singh confirms the said averment made by counsel for the petitioner of joining the investigation on 12.02.2026 by the petitioner, and submits that as of now, custodial interrogation of the petitioner is not required for the purpose of investigation.

¶44

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

¶45

Since, petitioner has already joined the investigation and custo-

¶46

dial interrogation is no more required; ad-interim bail order dated 20.01.2026, passed by this Court is hereby made absolute. Accordingly, present petition is allowed.

¶47

JYOTI 2026.04.28 17:41 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶48

��

¶49

��

¶50

However, petitioner shall continue to join the investigation as

¶51

and when required to do so and abide by all the terms and conditions laid down under Section 482(2) of BNSS, 2023.

¶52

Accordingly, petition stands disposed of.

¶53

��(��(��

¶54

��2)��,�)��)��3 ��

¶55

��

¶56

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

¶57

JYOTI 2026.04.28 17:41 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶58

�4�

¶59

��

¶60

JYOTI 2026.04.28 17:41 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

Surender v. State of Haryana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Surender v. State of Haryana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Case details

Similar cases

Simranjit Singh Alias Simran Vs State of Punjab

Nishan Singh and Others Vs State of Punjab and Others

Vijaypal @ Vijaypal Puniya Vs State of Haryana

Vilson Alias Sunny Vs State of Punjab

Bablu Sheffy Vs State of Haryana

Suresh Kumar Vs State of Haryana