Minor Procedural Lapses By NCB Can't Justify Anticipatory Bail In Commercial Quantity Drug Case: Punjab & Haryana High Court
The Punjab and Haryana High Court has said that when dealing with cases emanating from border-centric drug cartels involving commercial quantities of contraband and organised networks, courts are duty-bound to exercise heightened circumspection and strict scrutiny, and that minor procedural lapses on the part of the investigating agency cannot form the basis for granting the...
The Punjab and Haryana High Court has said that when dealing with cases emanating from border-centric drug cartels involving commercial quantities of contraband and organised networks, courts are duty-bound to exercise heightened circumspection and strict scrutiny, and that minor procedural lapses on the part of the investigating agency cannot form the basis for granting the extraordinary concession of anticipatory bail.
Justice Alok Jain said, "the Court cannot lose sight of the fact that the drug menace in the State of Punjab is at its peak and the larger aspect has to be seen for which thorough investigation is required. NCB is a specialized Authority to look into such crimes, however, certain minor lapses cannot form basis to make the petitioner entitled for grant the extra-ordinary concession of anticipatory bail."
The Court however clarified that its observation do not give a "clean chit" to the Authorities to violate the provisions of law with any impunity.
The Authorities, if find, that the Officer has not acted in accordance with law will be at liberty to take appropriate steps against him, the Court said.
The petitioner filed two petitions under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (corresponding to Section 438 CrPC, 1973), seeking anticipatory bail in NCB cases both registered by the NCB, Amritsar.
In NCB Crime (No. 08/2026), a search was conducted on 15.02.2026 at the residence of co-accused Harpal Singh, which allegedly led to the recovery of 2.950 kg of Opium, 5.504 kg of Methamphetamine, and 8.740 kg of Heroin. Pursuant to a disclosure statement made by co-accused Jodhbeer, one Jasbir Singh was nominated; and in the subsequent disclosure statement of Jasbir Singh, the petitioner's name was allegedly nominated.
Another case registered on 11.03.2026, the NCB is stated to have recovered 9.332 kg of heroin. In a subsequent disclosure statement of co-accused Nishan Singh @ Shana, the name of the petitioner, along with one Paramjit Singh @ Pamma (the petitioner's close relative), was implicated.
Senior Counsel for the petitioner inter alia submitted that the residential premises of the petitioner were raided on 15.02.2026, whereas his name was allegedly disclosed by co-accused Jasbir Singh only on 16.02.2026, demonstrating pre-meditated targeting by the investigating agency.
The sole piece of evidence against the petitioner in both NCB crimes was an uncorroborated disclosure statement recorded while in custody, carrying no evidentiary value in the absence of any independent material or recovery at his instance, he added
It was further submitted that in the initial remand application of 12.03.2026 in NCB Crime No. 14, the petitioner's name did not surface. It was only in the remand application dated 16.03.2026 that a disclosure statement of Nishan Singh @ Shana was projected, implicating the petitioner in an alleged secret meeting dated 06.03.2026 at the residence of Paramjit Singh @ Pamma.
It was highlighted that the Competent Authority declined to confirm attachment of 3 kanals of land purchased by the petitioner from Nishan Singh @ Shana, which had been wrongly projected as proceeds of crime.
The NCB, vehemently opposed the plea stating that the petitioner is a key conspirator and part of an organised international illicit drug trafficking network operating across the international border.
The petitioner's implication is not solely based on disclosure statements. Cogent digital evidence recovered from co-accused Nishan Singh's mobile phone and call detail records corroborate the petitioner's pivotal role, including his alleged participation in a secret meeting on 06.03.2026, he added.
It was further submitted that Properties admeasuring 93 kanals 11 marlas acquired in the name of the petitioner's mother, beyond her known sources of income, and two motor vehicles belonging to the petitioner, were attached as being disproportionate to any legitimate income, s.
Given the involvement of a huge commercial quantity, the strict bar under Section 37 of the NDPS Act squarely applies, and custodial interrogation is indispensable to unearth the entire financial trail and break the cartel.
The Court acknowledged the procedural anomalies raised by the petitioner but held that in investigating crimes involving intelligent and disciplined criminals, some minor discrepancies are likely, and such lapses cannot entitle an accused to the extraordinary concession of anticipatory bail.
Placing reliance on Kishor Vishwasrao Patil v. Deepak Yashwant Patil (SLP (Crl.) No. 1125/2022) and Adri Dharan Das v. State of W.B, 2005 the Court held that custodial interrogation of the petitioner is of utmost importance to unearth the entire financial trail, conspiracy, and nexus of all nominated accused with cross-border drug smuggling.
The Court distinguished the judgments cited by the petitioner on facts. It held that Ravinder Singh @ Ravi (CRM-M-57242-2024) pertained to regular bail involving a quantity barely exceeding the commercial threshold, while the present case involves a massive recovery of diverse narcotics pointing toward an organised cross-border drug syndicate.
"The considerations for pre-arrest bail, where custodial interrogation is crucial to unraveling a complex narco-network and financial trail, stand on a completely different footing," it added.
The Court similarly distinguished Abu Thahir @ Abdu, Lovepreet Singh @ Love, Balwinder Kaur, Manohar Singh, Jugraj Singh, and Divyanshi Singh on the basis of the quantum of recovery and the criminal antecedents of the petitioner.
The Court left the question of alleged misconduct by the Investigating Officer open, directing that the authorities would be at liberty to take appropriate steps if it is found that the officer did not act in accordance with law. It however clarified that this observation does not give a clean chit to the authorities to violate the provisions of law with impunity.
Stating that, "the custodial interrogation of the petitioner would be of grave importance, at this stage, to ensure that the investigation in this case comes to its logical end," both the pleas were dismissed.
For the Petitioner: Mr. P.S. Ahluwalia, Senior Advocate with Mr. Deepanshu, Advocate and Ms. Isha Mehta, Advocate
For the Respondent-NCB: Mr. Rajiv Sharma (Hisarwale), Special Public Prosecutor; Mr. Vinayak Atre, Advocate and Ms. Indu Bala Shama, Advocate; assisted by Inspector Sourabh Meena
Title: HARMANJIT SINGH SANDHU ALIAS HAMMA v. UNION OF INDIA THROUGH THE INTELLIGENCE OFFICER, AMRITSAR