Punjab & Haryana HC Refuses Anticipatory Bail to Alleged Drug Syndicate Figure Named in Two NCB Cases Involving Commercial-Quantity Narcotics

Justice Alok Jain dismissed twin anticipatory bail petitions, holding custodial interrogation essential to unravel a cross-border drug network and financial trail implicated by NCB Amritsar.

The Punjab and Haryana High Court at Chandigarh on 27 July 2026 dismissed two petitions filed by Harmanjit Singh Sandhu alias Hamma seeking anticipatory bail in connection with NCB Crime No. 8 of 2026 and NCB Crime No. 14 of 2026, both registered by the Narcotics Control Bureau, Amritsar. Justice Alok Jain, sitting singly, held that the strict bar under Section 37 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 squarely applied given the massive commercial quantities involved and the prima facie role attributed to the petitioner. The court found custodial interrogation indispensable to uncovering the full financial trail and the alleged cross-border supply chain, and concluded that minor procedural discrepancies in the investigation did not entitle the petitioner to the extraordinary concession of pre-arrest bail.

Two NCB Cases and the Petitioner’s Alleged Role

NCB Crime No. 8 of 2026 was registered on 15 February 2026 following a search at the residential premises of co-accused Harpal Singh. That search allegedly yielded 2.950 kg of opium, 5.504 kg of methamphetamine, and 8.740 kg of heroin. Harpal Singh and one Jodhbeer were initially nominated. On the basis of Jodhbeer’s disclosure statement, Jasbir Singh was implicated and arrested. Jasbir Singh’s subsequent disclosure statement nominated the petitioner.

NCB Crime No. 14 of 2026 was registered on 11 March 2026, after BSF officials of BOP Daoke, 181 Battalion apprehended Nishan Singh alias Shana carrying 9.332 kg of suspected heroin. The petitioner’s name did not appear in the first remand application filed on 12 March 2026. It was only in a subsequent remand application dated 16 March 2026 that a disclosure statement attributed to Nishan Singh alias Shana surfaced, naming the petitioner alongside Paramjit Singh alias Pamma. That disclosure alleged that a secret meeting was held on 6 March 2026 at Paramjit Singh’s residence, at which the petitioner participated and discussed receipt of a heroin consignment dropped by drone across the international border.

The NCB also relied on digital evidence, including call detail records and material recovered from Nishan Singh’s mobile phone, as corroborating the link between the petitioner and other co-accused around the relevant period.

Petitioner’s Challenges to the Investigation

Senior Counsel for the petitioner, Mr. P.S. Ahluwalia, pressed a series of objections to the manner in which the two cases were built.

On NCB Crime No. 8, he pointed out that the petitioner’s residential premises were searched on 15 February 2026, yet his name was allegedly disclosed by Jasbir Singh only on 16 February 2026. The sequence, he argued, demonstrated pre-meditated targeting. The sole evidence against the petitioner in that case, he submitted, was an uncorroborated custodial disclosure statement with no independent material and no recovery at the petitioner’s instance.

On NCB Crime No. 14, he drew attention to a pointed chronological gap: when Nishan Singh alias Shana was first produced before the court on 12 March 2026, no reference to the petitioner appeared. The petitioner’s brother was arrested on 13 March 2026 and his name appeared in remand papers relating to NCB Crime No. 8 but not NCB Crime No. 14. The implication of the petitioner in NCB Crime No. 14 emerged only in the remand application of 16 March 2026, which the Senior Counsel characterised as a concocted disclosure designed to exert undue pressure after the agency failed to apprehend the petitioner in NCB Crime No. 8.

The petitioner also relied on an incident during the intervening night of 9–10 March 2026, when his wife and cousin Paramjit Singh alias Pamma were allegedly picked up from their residence by officials including SP Kartik Hooda and Inspector Pankaj Yadav. Mobile recordings and CCTV footage were said to capture this. The petitioner’s wife was released at midnight on 11 March 2026 after villagers and panchayat members gathered outside the NCB Zonal Office. These events prompted a representation to senior authorities on 20 March 2026 and a writ petition by the petitioner’s mother in CRWP-3352-2026, in which the High Court on 23 March 2026 directed the Director General, NCB to take appropriate action. An enquiry was subsequently held on 7 April 2026 at the Office of the Deputy Commissioner, Tarn Taran, where statements and video material were recorded.

On property attachment, the petitioner noted that the Competent Authority declined to confirm attachment of a 3-kanal land parcel purchased from co-accused Nishan Singh alias Shana, rejecting the NCB’s characterisation of it as proceeds of crime. The attachment that was confirmed related to land in the petitioner’s mother’s name and two second-hand motor vehicles.

As to criminal antecedents, the petitioner accepted involvement in two prior FIRs but stressed that in the earlier NDPS case registered in 2019, the contraband was of a non-commercial quantity and bail had been granted.

NCB’s Opposition and the Section 37 Bar

The NCB, represented by Special Public Prosecutor Mr. Rajiv Sharma (Hisarwale), opposed the petitions on multiple fronts. He raised a threshold objection: the recoveries in NCB Crime No. 8 alone involved commercial quantities of opium, methamphetamine, and heroin, attracting the strict conditions of Section 37 of the NDPS Act. Under Section 37, bail cannot be granted unless the court is satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for believing that the accused is not guilty of the alleged offence and is not likely to commit an offence while on bail.

The NCB refuted the alleged procedural anomaly about the timing of the raid on 15 February 2026, submitting from the official record that co-accused Jasbir Singh’s statement was in fact recorded on 15 February 2026 itself, immediately leading to the raid at the petitioner’s premises. The formal arrest of Jasbir Singh on 16 February 2026 was a separate step in accordance with procedure. These were, at most, minor technical details that could not ground a claim for the extraordinary concession of anticipatory bail.

On the broader picture, the NCB described the petitioner as the mastermind of the drug cartel, with wealth far exceeding known legitimate income. It pointed to properties totalling 93 kanals 11 marlas acquired in the petitioner’s mother’s name that were attached as disproportionate to any legitimate income, along with the two motor vehicles. The NCB also noted that additional properties had been attached in the course of the proceedings.

On the allegation that the Investigating Officer had threatened the petitioner’s family, counsel for the NCB submitted that the officers had attended the petitioner’s residence to serve a notice under Section 67 of the NDPS Act. He characterised the video footage as a partial communication and said any words uttered could have been said in the heat of the moment. He nonetheless fairly submitted that the officer would be directed to proceed strictly in accordance with the law.

The NCB pressed for custodial interrogation as indispensable to uncovering the entire transaction chain and dismantling the cartel, arguing that a petitioner shielded by anticipatory bail would render interrogation a mere ritual.

How the Court Reasoned

Justice Alok Jain began by taking judicial notice of the alarming spread of the drug menace in Punjab’s border regions, observing that narco-syndicates exploit geographical proximity to international borders to run entrenched supply chains and launder illicit proceeds. In cases involving commercial quantities and organised cross-border networks, the court held, heightened scrutiny was required and individual liberty had to be carefully balanced against the overriding societal interest underlying Section 37.

The court accepted that investigating disciplined, organised criminals of this kind may produce minor discrepancies and that such minor lapses could not, by themselves, form the basis for granting the extraordinary concession of anticipatory bail. At the same time, the court was careful to state that this observation did not give the Authorities a free hand to violate the law; if an officer is found to have acted contrary to law, appropriate steps remain open.

On the petitioner’s reliance on Vijay Singh v. State of Haryana, 2023 SCC Online SC 1235, which the Senior Counsel argued had diluted the rigours of State of Haryana v. Samarth Kumar, the court did not accept that it assisted the petitioner. The court also distinguished each precedent cited by the petitioner on facts.

Ravinder Singh alias Ravi v. State of Punjab (CRM-M-57242-2024, decided 27 February 2025) was a case for regular bail involving a quantity barely exceeding the commercial threshold. The present petitions sought anticipatory bail and involved far larger recoveries across two cases pointing to an organised cross-border syndicate.

In State by Intelligence Officer (NCB) Bengaluru v. Abu Thahir alias Abdu, 2022 12 SCC 634; Lovepreet Singh alias Love v. State of Punjab, 2025:PHHC:117343; Balwinder Kaur v. State of Haryana, 2026:PHHC:026291; and Divyanshi Singh v. State of Punjab (CRM-M-54689-2025), the recoveries ranged between 210 grams and 1.7 kg. The present case involved multiples of those quantities in two separate registered crimes.

In Manohar Singh v. State of Haryana (SLP (Crl.) No. 17915-2025), the accused had no criminal antecedents; the petitioner here is involved in two prior FIRs including one under the NDPS Act. In Jugraj Singh v. State of Punjab (SLP (Crl.) No. 9190), the Supreme Court had observed that no effort was made to trace the accused’s mobile number or collect call records. Here, the court noted, call detail records and digital evidence prima facie connected the petitioner to the disclosure statements.

Taking the totality of material on record, the court found five considerations decisive: the enormous cache of drugs recovered and linked to the petitioner and co-accused; the specific allegation that the petitioner facilitated the lifting of an entire illegal cross-border consignment; his prior criminal antecedents under the NDPS Act; his close acquaintance with co-accused; and the need to unearth the full financial trail and the nexus of nominated accused with cross-border drug smuggling.

The court relied on the Supreme Court’s analysis in Kishor Vishwasrao Patil v. Deepak Yashwant Patil (SLP(Crl.) No. 1125-2022) and the passage from State v. Anil Sharma, (1997) 7 SCC 187, that “custodial interrogation is qualitatively more elicitation-oriented than questioning a suspect” protected by a pre-arrest bail order, and that “effective interrogation of a suspected person is of tremendous advantage in disinterring many useful informations.”

Order

Both petitions — CRM-M-21863-2026 and CRM-M-21876-2026 — were dismissed on 27 July 2026. The court expressly stated that no ground existed to grant anticipatory bail and that custodial interrogation of the petitioner was of grave importance to bring the investigation to its logical conclusion.

The court clarified that all observations were made solely for the purpose of deciding the anticipatory bail petitions and should not be read as any expression of opinion on the merits of the case. Pending applications, if any, were disposed of.

The order was marked as a speaking and reasoned order and as reportable.