Malkeet Singh v. Union of India

IN Malkeet S

Union of

Date of d Date of U

CORAM Present:

SUMEET

¶1seeking g Nagarik S NCB Cr punishabl Station N

¶2described THE HIGH COURT OF PUN CHANDIG

Singh

V/s India

decision: 22.07.2026 Uploading : 22.07.2026 M: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE Mr. B.S. Bhalla, Advocate fo Mr. Rajiv Sharma (Hissarwa Mr. Vinayak Atri, Advocate ***** T GOEL, J. (Oral) Present petition has been grant of anticipatory/pre-arrest ba Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (hereina rime No.04/2026 dated 19.0 le under Sections 8/20/23/27-A arcotic Control Bureau, Amritsa The prosecution case, for d in the impugned order (rejec r by the concerned Special Judge "5. As per allegations of the pro officers of the Narcotics Contro suspected Hydroponic Ganja at conscious possession of co-accus was apprehended on the spot, pur dated 19.01.2026 under Sections registered. During investigation,

NJAB AND HARYANA AT ARH

CRM-M-35595-2026

....Petitioner

....Respondent SUMEET GOEL or the petitioner. la), Special Public Prosecutor wi for the respondent - NCB filed on behalf of the petition ail under Section 482 of Bharat after to be referred as 'BNSS')

01.2026 registered for offenc and 29 of the NDPS Act at Pol ar Zonal Unit. r the cause of convenience, cting anticipatory bail plea of e) reads thus: secution, acting on specific intelligen ol Bureau, Amritsar, seized 1.064 kg t SGRDJI Airport, Amritsar, from sed Aarti Kaur D/o Resham Singh, w rsuant to which NCB Crime No. 04/20 8, 20 and 23 of the NDPS Act, 1985 w the voluntary statement of co-accu

ith ner iya in ces lice as nce, g of who was

Aarti Kaur recorded under Sectio had been sent by Paraminder Si trafficking of Hydroponic Ganja h Pratap Singh. On the basis of t other incriminating material, Ran Section 67 of the NDPS Act, w involvement in facilitating th Hydroponic Ganja as part of organized cartel functioning unde alias Rishi. Consequently, he wa punishable under Sections 8, 20 During interrogation, Rana Prat had been associated with the tra had facilitated his travel to Thaila narcotic drugs into India, incl statement, Shammi Kumar adm trafficking and transportation of H that he had arranged Rana Pra instance of co-accused Amarjit S operating under the directions of received a commission of ₹10,0 arrested on 21.01.2026 for offenc and 29 of the NDPS Act, 1985. D Singh disclosed the involvement Singh, resident of Toung, Tehsi whom he had recruited persons a pre-planned criminal conspiracy India. It was revealed that Rana and facilitated Malkeet Singh's operator of the cartel, namely " illegal trafficking into India, a involving Malkeet Singh was suc establishing his direct involvemen of contraband substances. Inves Singh had developed close relati after gaining his confidence, had and arranging other persons to a Ganja from Thailand to India. In Malkeet Singh, in active conniv Rana Pratap Singh, facilitated

on 67 of the NDPS Act revealed that ngh and that her travel to Thailand had been facilitated by co-accused Ra the recovery, disclosure statements a na Pratap Singh was issued notice un whereupon he voluntarily disclosed he transportation and trafficking an internationally operated and w er the directions of kingpin Rishub Ah as arrested on 20.01.2026 for offen 0, 23 and 29 of the NDPS Act, 19 tap Singh disclosed that Shammi Kum afficking cartel since August 2025. a and for the purpose of illegally import luding Hashish Oil. In his volunt mitted his role in facilitating the ill Hydroponic Ganja and further disclo atap Singh's travel to Thailand at Singh, a Thailand-based cartel mem f Rishub Ahuja alias Rishi, for which 000/-. Accordingly, Shammi Kumar w ces punishable under Sections 8, 20, During further investigation, Rana Pra of accused Malkeet Singh S/o Mukh l Baba Bakala, District Amritsar, w and sent them to Thailand pursuant t y for trafficking Hydroponic Ganja i a Pratap Singh had personally arrang s travel to Thailand, where the m "Rishi", supplied Hydroponic Ganja and that the said trafficking operat ccessfully executed, thereby prima fa nt in the procurement and transportat stigation further revealed that Malk ions and coordination with "Rishi" a d himself started identifying, convinc ct as couriers for trafficking Hydropo n furtherance of the criminal conspira vance and coordination with Rishi a and sent multiple persons abroad

she for ana nder his of well-huja nces

¶985mar ting tary licit osed mber h he was atap htar with to a into ged main for tion acie tion keet and, cing onic acy,

¶3question. named in his name statement law. It h substance The prose or procure case agai accused p themselve agency h connectin syndicate implicated on accoun trafficking Hydroponic Ganja int in the bank accounts, including e of "Malkeet", prima facie indicat trafficking activities. The materia establishes that accused Malke participant but an active member organized international drug procurement, transportation, fac Ganja, thereby attracting offence 25, 27-A and 29 of the NDPS Act, Learned counsel for the r is innocent and has been fa Learned counsel has further iter the original complaint nor in th has only surfaced subsequent t made by a co-accused, which has been further contended th e has been effected from the con ecution has not produced any r was involved in the alleged tra ement of contraband. It has bee inst the petitioner is based on persons who are attempting to es from the criminal liability has failed to place on record a ng the petitioner with the alleg . Learned counsel has emphas d merely on the basis of allegat nt of previous disputes. Moreov

to India. Financial transactions reflec entries specifically described in the na te monetary dealings connected with al collected during investigation clea eet Singh was not merely a pass r, recruiter, courier and facilitator of trafficking cartel engaged in cilitation and circulation of Hydropo es punishable under Sections 8, 20, 1985." petitioner has iterated that alsely implicated into the FIR rated that the petitioner was neith e initial stages of investigation a tly on the basis of the disclosu is inadmissible in evidence und hat no recovery of any narco scious possession of the petition direct evidence to show that afficking, transportation, financi en further contended that the ent suspicion and statements of c shift the blame in order to sa y. Furthermore, the investigati any independent material direc ged international drug trafficki sized that the petitioner has be tions made by co-accused perso ver, the prosecution story does n

cted ame arly sive f the onic 23, in her ure der otic ner. tire co-ave ctly een ons

disclose a stringent counsel h is not inv from the p useful pu willing to served by the grant o

¶4NCB has by submit in nature organised procurem into Indi investigat involveme operations is not bas investigat prima fac has furthe custodial any overt act attributable to the provisions of Sections 27-A an has further contended that the pe olved in any other criminal case petitioner and, therefore, his cust urpose. According to learned co o join the investigation and, ther y subjecting him to detention. On of anticipatory bail is prayed for Per contra, learned counse vehemently opposed the grant o tting that the allegations against . According to learned counsel d international drug trafficking ent, transportation and import of ia. It has been further subm tion, substantial material has su ent of the petitioner in the crim r has played a significant ro s. According to learned counsel, sed solely upon the disclosure tion has also brought forth other r with the activities of the organ cie case against the petitioner. L er contended that the investigatio interrogation of the petitioner

petitioner which would attract nd 29 of the NDPS Act. Learn etitioner has clean antecedents a e. Nothing remains to be recover todial interrogation would serve ounsel, the petitioner is ready a refore, no useful purpose would n the strength of these submissio r. el appearing for the respondent of anticipatory bail to the petition the petitioner are grave and serio l, the present case pertains to syndicate involved in the ille f Hydroponic Ganja from Thaila mitted that during the course urfaced which indicate the act minal conspiracy. Furthermore, ole in facilitating the trafficki , the role attributed to the petition statement of a co-accused but r corroborative material linking nised syndicate which establishe Learned Special Public Prosecu on is still at a crucial stage and r is necessary for uncovering

ned red be ons, t – ner ous an gal of ive ner es a

complete involved Moreover Section 3 petition b

¶5gone throu

¶6allegation commissi the course drug traff role to th operations travelled involved persons a agency ha incrimina allegation alleged co named in during the co-accuse allegation the NDP conspiracy, tracing the financia in the racket and ascertainin r, the offences alleged against t 37 of the NDPS Act. Accordin e dismissed in the interest of just I have heard the learned cou ugh the available record of the c As per the material brough ns have been levelled against on of offences under the NDPS e of investigation prima facie ref ficking syndicate and the prosec he petitioner in facilitating an s. The investigation further r to Thailand and has maintain in the narcotics trade. The disc are not the sole basis of the pro as also relied upon digital eviden ating material collected during ns prima facie disclose active pa onspiracy. It is pertinent to note the FIR at the initial stage, an e course of investigation on the b ed. Though the petitioner was ns against him pertain to crimin S Act, which does not neces

al trail, identifying other associa ng the source of the contraban the petitioner attract the rigours ngly, it is prayed that the pres tice. unsel for the rival parties and ha case. ht on record, indubitably, serio the petitioner in relation to Act. The material collected duri flects the existence of an organis cution has specifically attributed nd participating in the trafficki revealed that the petitioner h ned links with persons alleged closure statement(s) of co-accus osecution case as the investigati nce, financial transactions and oth the course of investigation. T articipation of the petitioner in that the present petitioner was n nd his name surfaced subsequen basis of the disclosure statement not apprehended at the spot, nal conspiracy under Section 29 sitate physical possession of

ates nd. of ent ave ous sed d a has dly sed her The not ntly t of

contraban subsequen corrobora Court, th involveme investigat interrogat network o record to and the p incrimina

¶7co-accuse of plea f meticulou whether p alleged o involveme illegal tra gravity of the necess to identify of the offe with evid drug traff not merit nd. The alleged involvement of th nt stage, is supported by in ation to the prosecution version he veracity of the disclosure ent of the petitioner in the offen tion, which can be effectively u tion. Such interrogation is essen of the contraband. At this stage demonstrate that the petitioner possibility of recovery of furth ating material cannot be ruled out The plea of the petitioner tha ed is inadmissible is devoid of m for grant of anticipatory bail usly evaluate the admissibility prima facie material exists whic offence. The investigation co ent of the petitioner in a well-o ade and distribution of psychot f the offence coupled with the m sity of custodial interrogation to y other potential co-conspirators fence, the crucial stage of investig ence and the overarching public ficking, this Court is of the consi the concession of anticipatory b

he petitioner, though emerging a nvestigative material that len n. In the considered view of t statement and the extent of nce, are matters requiring thorou undertaken only through custod ntial to trace the origin, source, a e, no material has been placed is not connected with the offen her contraband and/ordiscovery t. at the confessional statement of merit, at the stage of considerati as the Court is not required of evidence but only to exam ch connect the petitioner with onducted thus far indicates organized network engaged in tropic substances. The nature a material collected on record just o unravel the larger conspiracy a s. Having regard to the seriousn gation, the possibility of tamperi c interest in curbing the menace idered view that the petitioner do bail at this stage. Moreover, giv

at a nds this ugh dial on nce of ion to ine tify ess e of oes

the seriou identifyin exclusive anticipato ongoing i or influen

¶8grant of a individual reckon wi the accus impact of regard is titled as S the Suprem us nature of the allegations, t r may be indispensable for unea ng other potential accomplices w knowledge or possession o ory bail at this premature stag nvestigation and may potentially ncing material witnesses. It is befitting to mention her anticipatory bail, the Court has to l rights and protecting societa ith the magnitude and nature of sed; the need for fair and free f such alleged iniquities on soci being made to the dicta passe State v. Anil Sharma, (1997) 7 S me Court held as under, relevant

"6. We find force in the submissi qualitatively more elicitation-orient well-ensconced with a favourable or case like this, effective interrogation advantage in disinterring many usefu would have been concealed. Success suspected person knows that he is arrest bail order during the time he in such a condition would reduce t custodial interrogation is fraught subjected to third-degree methods n argument can be advanced by all a has to presume that responsible poli a responsible manner and that thos offences would not conduct themselve

the custodial interrogation of arthing the broader conspiracy a whose identities may be within of the petitioner. The grant e would, therefore, prejudice y result in tampering with eviden re that while considering a plea o equilibrate between safeguardi al interest(s). The Court ought f the offence; the role attributed investigation as also far reachi iety. A profitable reference in t ed by the Hon'ble Supreme Co SCC 187 : 1997 SCC (Cri) 103 t whereof reads as under: ion of CBI that custodial interrogation ted than questioning a suspect who rder under Section 438 of the Code. I n of a suspected person is of tremend ul informations and also materials wh s in such interrogation would elude if well protected and insulated by a p is interrogated. Very often interrogat to a mere ritual. The argument that with the danger of the person be need not be countenanced, for, such ccused in all criminal cases. The Co ice officers would conduct themselves e entrusted with the task of disinterr es as offenders."

of nce for to d to this ourt 39], n is o is In a dous hich f the pre-tion eing an ourt s in

prima fac material c reasonabl circumsta appropria effective i

¶9milieu of unravel th dismissed

¶10of opinion

11.

July 22, 2 Ajay

At this stage, there is no ma cie case is not made out against collected during the course of in e basis for the accusations ances, the grant of anticipatory ate as it is likely to cause seriou investigation. Accordingly, this Court is o r does not deserve the concession f the case in hand. Moreove r may be necessary to trace the so he truth. The petition is, thus, d. Nothing said hereinabove sh n upon merits of the case/investig Pending application(s), if any

2026

aterial on record to suggest tha the petitioner. On the contrary, nvestigation appears to establish levelled against him. In su y bail at this stage would not us impediment to the ongoing a of the considered opinion that n of anticipatory bail in the fact er, custodial interrogation of ource of supply of contraband & , devoid of merits and is here hall be deemed to be an expressi gation. y, shall also stand disposed off. (SUMEET GOEL)

JUDGE

at a h a uch be ual & to eby