Robert Masih vs State of Punjab, order dated September 22, 2025
The Punjab and Haryana High Court at Chandigarh on September 22, 2025, dismissed the anticipatory bail of the petitioner who was accused of funding drug smuggling from Pakistan through drones. Justice Rupinderjit Chahal dismissed the petition, stating that the allegations against the petitioner were serious and releasing him could pose a great threat to national security.
The case arose when the co-accused who was already in custody in another FIR under the Official Secrets Act 1923, the Aircraft Act 1934, and the NDPS Act 1985, disclosed during interrogation that a person named Sukhdeep Singh had involved him in drug smuggling operations and that the consignments of heroin were being supplied from Pakistan through drones. The co-accused further stated that the petitioner used to provide money for these consignments which led to the petitioner being tied to the case.The petitioner argued that he had been falsely implicated as he was not named in the FIR and no recovery of drugs were made from him. He maintained that he had no connection with the alleged offence and expressed willingness to join the investigation whenever required. The respondents reiterated by stating that the allegations were serious and that the investigation revealed the petitioner’s role in a cross-border drug smuggling nexus involving drones used to transport heroin from Pakistan. They also further submitted that the petitioner had been declared a proclaimed offender on May 19, 2025, and was involved in multiple other cases, indicating he was a habitual offender. The respondents also insisted that custodial interrogation was necessary to uncover the full extent of the drug network, including recovery of drones, communication devices, SIM cards, and financial records.
The Court observed that there has been a steady rise in cases of cross-border drug smuggling through drones, which posed a serious threat to national security and had devastating social consequences. The Court also emphasised that in matters involving such grave offences, it is important to strike a balance between individual liberty and the broader interests of society. The Court referred to State v. Anil Sharma (1997) 7 SCC 187, and stated that custodial interrogation is often crucial for uncovering vital information that cannot be derived if the accused is protected under anticipatory bail. Therefore, the Court found no merit in the petition and dismissed it by holding that custodial interrogation was vital for a fair investigation, further clarifying that the remarks did not reflect on the merits of the case.
Appearances
For the Petitioner : Adv. Mr. Ritesh Pandey
For the Respondent : Mr. Ravinder Singh, DAG, Punjab.