Allowed

Anil Kumar v. State of Haryana

Punjab & Haryana HC22 Jul 2026CRM-M/5513/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court confirmed interim anticipatory bail granted earlier, noting the contraband was recovered from a co-accused, the petitioner had clean antecedents, and he had joined the investigation. The court relied on its own decision in Ashu and the Supreme Court's decision in Jugraj Singh to make the interim order absolute subject to conditions.

What did the court decide?

Interim anticipatory bail granted on 12.02.2026 is confirmed and made absolute subject to conditions under Section 482(2) BNSS.

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

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶2

(203)

¶3

CRM-M-5513-2026 Decided on : 22.07.2026 Uploaded on : 22.07.2026

Anil Kumar

……Petitioner(s)

Versus

State of Haryana

……Respondent(s)

CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL

¶10

Present: None for the petitioner (s).

¶11

Ms. Priyanka Sadar, Sr. DAG, Haryana.

¶12

¶13

Sumeet Goel (Oral):

¶14

The instant petition under Section 482 of BNSS, 2023 (438 of Cr.P.C.), has been filed for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner in case bearing FIR No.479 dated 19.11.2025, registered under Section 20 of NDPS Act, 1985 (Section 29 of NDPS Act was added later on), at Police Station Sampla, District Rohtak, Haryana.

¶15

On 12.02.2026, the following order was passed:

¶16

“The instant petition under Section 482 of BNSS, 2023 (438 of Cr.P.C.), has been filed for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner in case bearing FIR No.479 dated 19.11.2025, registered under Section 20 of NDPS Act, 1985 (Section 29 of NDPS Act was added later on), at Police Station Sampla, District Rohtak, Haryana.

¶17

Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case on the basis of the disclosure statement made by the co-accused, and that, apart from such disclosure statement, there is no other incriminating material to establish his involvement in the matter. It is further contended that the alleged contraband, i.e. 1.96

¶18

NAVEEN NAGPAL 2026.07.22 17:00 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment HIgh Court Chandigarh

¶19

CRM-M-5513-2026

¶20

P a g e | 2

¶21

kilograms of ‘Ganja’, was recovered from the co-accused and is marginally above the small quantity. The petitioner has clean antecedents and is not involved in any other criminal case. Accordingly, learned counsel prayed for the grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner as he is ready and willing to join the investigation.

¶22

Notice of motion.

¶23

Mr. Karan Veer Singh, Sr. DAG, Haryana, puts in appearance on behalf of respondent-State and upon instructions from ASI Rajesh Kumar, submitted that the petitioner is involved in drug trafficking and was nominated by the co-accused as a supplier of the contraband. However, he fairly admitted that apart from the disclosure statement, there is no material available on record to establish the petitioner’s complicity in the commission of alleged offence. It is also not disputed that the petitioner is not involved in any other criminal case.

¶24

Heard.

¶25

Keeping in view the contentions raised by learned counsel for the parties and taking into account that the alleged contraband recovered from the co-accused falls within the intermediate quantity; that there is no material on record, apart from the disclosure statement of the co-accused, to indicate the involvement of the present petitioner in the commission of the offence; and that the petitioner is not involved in any other criminal case, the petitioner is directed to join investigation as and when required by the Investigating Officer. In the event of arrest, the petitioner be released on interim bail on furnishing personal bail/surety bonds to the satisfaction of Arresting/Investigating Officer till the next date of hearing subject to the conditions as envisaged under Section 482(2) of the BNSS (erstwhile Section 438(2) Cr.P.C.).

¶26

Adjourned to 04.05.2026.”

¶27

Learned State counsel (on instructions) has submitted that the petitioner has joined the investigation and has cooperated therein, except for disclosing the source.

¶28

Keeping in view the factual milieu of the case in hand, especially the factum of the petitioner having joined investigation & cooperated therein, except for disclosing the source and he being arrayed as

¶29

NAVEEN NAGPAL 2026.07.22 17:00 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment HIgh Court Chandigarh

¶30

CRM-M-5513-2026

¶31

P a g e | 3

¶32

an accused on the basis of disclosure statement, this Court is inclined to confirm the order dated 12.02.2026, in light of the dicta of the judgment passed by this Court in CRM-M-54032-2024 ‘Ashu Vs. State of Punjab’ and recent judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court passed in ‘Jugraj Singh Vs. State of Punjab’ bearing Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No.9190/2025 .

¶33

Accordingly, the petition is allowed and the order dated 12.02.2026 granting interim anticipatory bail to the petitioner is hereby made absolute, subject to the conditions as enumerated under Section 482(2) of BNSS.

¶34

This order should not be treated as “blanket” order. It will not be read granting petitioner indefinite protection from arrest. It shall be confined to the FIR mentioned ibid and will not operate in respect of any other incident that involves commission of an offence.

¶35

Liberty is reserved in favour of State/complainant to move for cancellation/recall of this order in case the petitioner violates any condition stipulated under Section 482(2) of BNSS or upon showing any other sufficient cause.

¶36

Needless to say that anything observed herein above shall not be construed to be an opinion on the merits of the case.

¶37

Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed off.

¶38

(SUMEET GOEL) 22.07.2026 JUDGE Naveen

¶39

Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No Whether Reportable : Yes/No

¶40

NAVEEN NAGPAL 2026.07.22 17:00 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment HIgh Court Chandigarh

Anil Kumar v. State of Haryana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Anil Kumar 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Princepal Singh Alias Prince Vs State of Punjab

Monu and Others Vs State of Haryana and Another

Ashwani Kumar @ Achchi & Others Vs State of Punjab & Others

Gurpreet Vs State of Haryana

Hakmuddin and Others Vs Tahir

Gurveer Singh @ Gurvir Singh Vs State of Punjab