Dismissed¶22

Sunny Deol v. State of Punjab

Punjab & Haryana HC5 Feb 2026CRM-M/6697/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Anticipatory bail refused and petition dismissed; FIR No.120 dated 13.09.2025, Sections 21-B and 29 NDPS Act 1985, Police Station Bilga, District Jalandhar; arrest of Soma Bai with 7 grams heroin; implication via disclosure statement; co-nominee Sukhdev Singh; State opposition on habitual-offender and custodial-interrogation grounds; decided 11.02.2026.

What did the court decide?

Taking into account the facts and circumstances and the stand of the State counsel, no ground is made out at this stage to consider the petitioner for grant of anticipatory bail; the petition is dismissed. ¶21

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

¶1

�� 

¶2

�� 

¶3

�� ! �"#��$%��%��

&��'

��

��

&��(��

��

��#��)�'��%��&��%&%��*�'% ++++

¶10

��

¶11

�%&%��*�',��%�-��'.

¶12

�� !��"#$��Bharatiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 seeking anticipatory bail for the petitioner in FIR No.120 dated 13.09.2025 under Sections 21-B and 29 of NDPS Act, 1985 registered at Police Station Bilga, District Jalandhar.

¶13

The case of the prosecution is that one Soma Bai was found in conscious possession of 7 grams of Heroin and as such, she was arrested in the present case. On her disclosure statement, the petitioner and one Sukhdev Singh were also nominated in the present FIR.

¶14

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the sole basis of implicating the petitioner in the present case is the disclosure statement suffered by Soma Bai, who is allegedly the mother of the petitioner. Apart from that there is nothing else to rope the petitioner into the present case.

¶15

Notice of motion.

¶16

RAJENDER KUMAR 2026.02.11 11:19 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order

¶17

��

¶18

��

¶19

Mr. Rishabh Singla, AAG, Punjab accepts notice and opposes the petition on the grounds that the petitioner is involved other cases of similar nature and he is a habitual offender. He is stated to be a supplier of the contraband and as such he may be in contact with a number of persons indulged in the illegal business of narcotics. Hence, his custodial interrogation is necessary. Moreover, granting him the benefit of anticipatory bail would encourage the offenders and may lead to commission of more offences of similar nature.

¶20

Heard.

¶21

Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the present case and the specific stand taken by the learned State Counsel, no ground is made out at this stage to consider the petitioner for grant of anticipatory bail.

¶22

Dismissed.

¶23

��

¶24

RAJENDER KUMAR 2026.02.11 11:19 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order

Sunny Deol v. State of Punjab

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sunny Deol v. State of Punjab

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Case details

Similar cases

Jaswant Singh Vs State of Punjab

Ajay Kumar and Anr. Vs State of Punjab Thr Drug Inspector Mansa

Mohinder Pal Vs State of Punjab and Ors.

Rajendera Cherukuri Alias Cherukuri Rajendra Vs State of Haryana

Parshant Vs State of Haryana

Simranjeet Singh Vs State of Haryana