CRM-M No. 36092 of 2026 · Punjab And Haryana High Court · 2026

CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.S.GREWAL Present:- Mr. Randeep Singh Waraich (Rana), Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Sourabh Goel, SPP, DRI with Ms. Deify Jindal, Advocate for the respondent. *** H.S. Grewal, J.(Oral)

#1. This petition has been filed under Section 482 of BNSS, 2023 (erstwhile Section 438 Cr.P.C.) seeking anticipatory bail to the petitioner in Complaint No. F.No.DRI/LdZU/855/INT-4/2026, under Sections 8, 18, 23, 27- A, 28, 29, 35, 54, 60 and 61 of NDPS Act, 1985 registered by the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence, Ludhiana Zone, District Ludhiana.

#2. The case of the prosecution is that a consignment containing 1.64 kilograms of opium sent through a courier service by co-accused Rajnish Kumar was intercepted and recovered by the DRI. During further investigation, another 2.69 kilograms of opium allegedly dispatched by Rajnish Kumar through the courier agency being run by co-accused Avtar Singh was also intercepted. Subsequently, two additional parcels containing 1 kilogram of opium and 505 grams of opium, respectively, were recovered. It is alleged that the petitioner, who was working as a driver with the said courier agency, had CRM-M-36092-2026 -2- booked the consignments containing the contraband and was, therefore, involved in the alleged offences under the NDPS Act.

#3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case and he is merely a salaried driver employed by Avtar Singh and earns approximately ₹20,000/- per month. He had no ownership, control, dominion or financial interest in the courier business or the alleged contraband. His duties were confined to driving the vehicle used for transportation of courier parcels, whereas the packing, booking, dispatch and handling of the parcels were exclusively undertaken by co-accused Rajnish Kumar. It is further submitted that there is no material to suggest that he had knowledge of the contents of the parcels or had participated in any criminal conspiracy. Learned counsel argues that the petitioner has been nominated solely on the basis of the disclosure statement of a co-accused, which by itself is inadmissible in evidence. It is further submitted that the petitioner is a first-time offender and is ready and willing to join investigation and cooperate with the investigating agency.

#4. Learned counsel for the respondent has filed reply by way of an affidavit of Mr. Ankit Yadav, Intelligence Officer, Directorate of Revenue Intelligence, Ludhiana Zonal Unit, District Ludhiana, in Court, which is taken on record. He, while referring to the reply, submits that the present case involves recovery of commercial quantity of opium and, therefore, the rigours of Section 37 of the NDPS Act are attracted. He further submits that during the course of investigation, co-accused Avtar Singh disclosed that the petitioner was not merely employed as a driver but was his partner in the courier business. It is further submitted that CCTV footage collected during CRM-M-36092-2026 -3- investigation shows the petitioner unloading the parcels containing the contraband from the vehicle, which prima facie showing his active participation in the transportation of the narcotic substance. Learned counsel also submits that the matter is still under investigation and the custodial interrogation of the petitioner is necessary to unearth the larger conspiracy. It is, therefore, prayed that the present petition be dismissed.

#6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. It is evident from the material placed on record that the present case involves the transportation of commercial quantity of opium. As per the prosecution, CCTV footage shows the petitioner unloading the parcels containing the contraband from the vehicle. Further, co-accused Avtar Singh has stated that the petitioner was his partner in the courier business and not merely a driver.

#7. The plea raised by the the petitioner that he was only a salaried driver and had no knowledge about the contents of the parcels is a matter to be examined during the course of trial. At this stage, this Court is not required to examine the evidence in detail. Since the case involves commercial quantity of contraband, the rigours of Section 37 of the NDPS Act are attracted.

#8. It is well settled law that the concession of anticipatory bail is an extraordinary remedy meant for exceptional cases and is not a matter of routine. Reference in this regard may be made to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia Vs. State of Punjab, AIR 1980 SC 1632, wherein it has been held as under :- “(1) The power under Section 438, Criminal Procedure Code, is of an extra- ordinary character and must be exercised sparingly in exceptional cases only; CRM-M-36092-2026 -4- (2) Neither Section 438 nor any other provision of the Code authorises the grant of blanket anticipatory bail for offences not yet committed or with regard to accusations not so far levelled. (3) The said power is not unguided or uncanalised but all the limitations imposed in the preceding Section 437, are implicit therein and must be read into Section 438. (4) In addition to the limitations mentioned in Section 437, the petitioner must make out a special case for the exercise of the power to grant anticipatory bail. (5) Where a legitimate case for the remand of the offender to the police custody under Section 167 (2) can be made out by the investigating agency or a reasonable claim to secure incriminating material from information likely to be received from the offender under Section 27 of the Evidence Act can be made out, the power under Section 438 should not be exercised. (6) The discretion under Section 438 cannot be exercised with regard to offences punishable with death or imprisonment for life unless the court at that very stage is satisfied that such a charge appears to be false or groundless. (7) The larger interest of the public and State demand that in serious cases like economic offences involving blatant corruption at the higher rungs of the executive and political power, the discretion under Section 438 of the Code should not be exercised; and (8) Mere general allegation of mala fides in the petition are inadequate. The court must be satisfied on materials before it that the allegations of mala fides are substantial and the accusation appears to be false and groundless.”

#9. Keeping in view the seriousness of the offence, the nature of allegations and the role attributed to the petitioner, this Court is not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

#11. Consequently, the petition is, hereby, dismissed. However, it is clarified that the observations made hereinabove would not have any bearing on the merits of the case. July 15, 2026 Sonia (H.S.GREWAL) JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned Whether reportable : : Yes/No Yes/No