Ownership of Vehicle Linked to Commercial Quantity of Heroin – Custodial Interrogation Necessary: Punjab & Haryana High Court Denies Anticipatory Bail under Section 482 BNSS

"Custodial interrogation is not a punitive measure; it is a tool to reach the root of the offence," held Justice Sumeet Goel while rejecting anticipatory bail in a case involving 421 grams of heroin recovered from a scooter registered in the accused's name.

Punjab and Haryana High Court dismissed a plea under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) filed by Akashdeep Singh seeking pre-arrest bail in connection with an FIR registered under Sections 21(C), 25, and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (NDPS Act). The Court held that there was no credible evidence of false implication and custodial interrogation was necessary to trace the origin of the contraband and ensure a fair investigation.

The case arose from an FIR registered at Police Station Gharinda, District Amritsar, following the seizure of 421 grams of heroin from a Honda Activa allegedly abandoned near the international border. Though initially registered against an unknown person, the scooter was traced to Akashdeep Singh, leading to the invocation of his name in the investigation. The petitioner maintained that the scooter had been taken by a friend without his knowledge—a claim the Court found unsubstantiated.

"False Implication Not Shown; Ownership and Conduct Raise Credible Suspicion"

The Court observed that, "the Activa scooter from which the contraband was recovered is registered in the petitioner’s name, and as stated in the petition itself, there is another FIR of similar nature pending against him." The argument of false implication was found to be unconvincing, particularly in light of the fact that no substantive material supported the claim that the vehicle had been taken by another person (allegedly Sahilpreet Singh) without the petitioner’s knowledge or consent.

The High Court noted that the petitioner's father had made a representation to the Senior Superintendent of Police claiming misuse of the vehicle, but the investigating agency found nothing credible in support of this assertion. The Court, therefore, concluded that, "no cause, nay, plausible cause has been shown, at this stage, from which it can be deciphered that the petitioner has been falsely implicated."

"Anticipatory Bail Cannot Be a Shield to Avoid Interrogation in Serious Offences"

Relying on the landmark precedents of the Supreme Court, including Kishor Vishwasrao Patil v. Deepak Yashwant Patil, Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre, and Sushila Agrawal, the High Court reiterated that anticipatory bail in serious offences like those under the NDPS Act is an extraordinary remedy, available only under exceptional circumstances.

Justice Goel underscored that "Courts ought to be generally guided by considerations such as the nature and gravity of the offences, the role attributed to the applicant, and the facts of the case." Citing the Constitution Bench ruling in Sushila Agrawal (2020), the Court emphasized that anticipatory bail should not interfere with an ongoing investigation, particularly where a commercial quantity of narcotics is involved.

Further strengthening this position, the Court quoted State v. Anil Sharma, (1997) 7 SCC 187, in which the Supreme Court held:

“Custodial interrogation is qualitatively more elicitation-oriented than questioning a suspect who is well-ensconced with a favourable order under Section 438. Very often, interrogation in such a condition would reduce to a mere ritual.”

The Court reasoned that granting anticipatory bail in this case would effectively frustrate the purpose of interrogation, especially when the petitioner’s conduct (allegedly fleeing from the spot and abandoning the scooter) coupled with his connection to the vehicle and the absence of material evidence of coercion or false implication, called for a deeper probe into the drug network.

"Balance of Liberty and Public Interest Tilts Towards Fair Investigation"

Recognizing the seriousness of the offence and the wider ramifications on public safety, the Court noted:

“It is imperative that every person in the society can expect an atmosphere free from foreboding & fear of any transgression. At this stage, there is no material on record to hold that prima facie case is not made out against the petitioner.”

Emphasizing that Section 37 of the NDPS Act imposes stringent conditions for bail in cases involving commercial quantities, the Court held that custodial interrogation was not merely justified, but essential. The petitioner, according to the State, had fled upon seeing law enforcement, abandoning the scooter which directly led to the seizure of the narcotics. The High Court accepted that this conduct was not consistent with a claim of innocence.

Consequently, the High Court dismissed the petition, stating that "the petition is devoid of merits and is hereby dismissed." All pending applications were also disposed of.

This ruling by the Punjab and Haryana High Court affirms that in narcotics cases involving commercial quantities, mere ownership of the vehicle linked to the contraband, coupled with suspicious conduct and prior criminal involvement, is sufficient to deny anticipatory bail, particularly when custodial interrogation is sought to dismantle potential trafficking networks. Courts must prioritize public interest and the integrity of investigations over individual anticipatory protections when the facts and law so demand.

Date of Decision: December 3, 2025