Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Vikas Bahl, J.
Pawan - Appellant
Versus
State Of Haryana - Respondent
CRM-M-24358-2021
Decided On : 14-09-2021
Anticipatory Bail - NDPS Act - 21(b), 51(b), 27-A - The court granted anticipatory bail to the petitioner in a case under Section 21(b) of the NDPS Act, 1985 and Section 51(b) of the Disaster Management Act, 2005, with Section 27-A of the NDPS Act, 1985 added during investigation.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner sought anticipatory bail in a case under Section 21(b) of the NDPS Act, 1985 and Section 51(b) of the Disaster Management Act, 2005, with Section 27-A of the NDPS Act, 1985 added during investigation. The petitioner claimed false implication and readiness to join the investigation.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioner was not named in the FIR and had not been present at the spot of the alleged crime. The court also noted that the recovery was made from a co-accused and the petitioner was only named in a disclosure statement. The court granted anticipatory bail based on the lack of evidence against the petitioner.
Issues: The issues revolved around the petitioner's alleged involvement in the case, false implication, and readiness to join the investigation.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was influenced by the lack of evidence directly implicating the petitioner and the fact that the petitioner had not been named in the FIR. The court also considered the petitioner's readiness to join the investigation as a factor in granting anticipatory bail.
Final Decision: The court granted anticipatory bail to the petitioner, emphasizing that the decision did not express an opinion on the merits of the case and that the trial court would proceed independently.
JUDGMENT
Vikas Bahl, J. (Oral). - This is the first petition under Section 438 Cr.P.C. for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner in case FIR No.267 dated 14.06.2021 under Section 21 (b) of the NDPS Act, 1985 and Section 51 (b) of Disaster Management Act, 2005 but during investigation Section 27-A of NDPS Act, 1985 has been added, registered at Police Station City Fatehabad, District Fatehabad.
On 30.06.2021, a Coordinate Bench of this Court was pleased to pass the following order:-
“The case has been taken up for hearing through video conferencing.
Prayer in the present petition filed under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short 'the Cr.P.C.') is for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner in case FIR No.267 dated 14.06.2021 registered under Sections 21(b) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short 'the NDPS Act') and Section 51(b) of the Disaster Management Act, 2005 at Police Station City Fatehabad, District Fatehabad to which Section 27-A of the NDPS Act was added lateron.
Learned Counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the petitioner was not named in the FIR and has been falsely implicated in the case on the basis of disclosure statement of co- accused Rahul and Naveen. The petitioner was not present on the spot and no recovery was effected from him. The petitioner is not involved in any other case under the NDPS Act. Rigors of Section 37 of the NDPS Act are not applicable qua the petitioner. The petitioner is ready to join the investigation.
Notice of motion.
Pursuant to supply of advance copy, Mr. Ranvir Singh Arya, Addl. A.G., Haryana has appeared and accepted notice on behalf of the respondent-State.
Learned State Counsel seeks time to file reply. Adjourned to 14.09.2021.
In the meanwhile, the petitioner is directed to join the investigation as and when called upon to do so. In the event of his arrest, the petitioner shall be released on interim anticipatory bail by the arresting officer/investigating officer on furnishing of bail bonds by him to the satisfaction of the arresting officer/investigating officer. The petitioner shall comply with the conditions enumerated under Section 438(2) of the Cr.P.C. failing which he shall not be entitled to the protection of interim anticipatory bail allowed to him.”
Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that in pursuance of the above order, the petitioner has joined the investigation and even the alleged recovery from the co-accused Vikram was of noncommercial quantity and in fact the said Vikram had taken the name of the Rahul and Naveen and not the petitioner. It is only subsequently, that Rahul and Naveen named the petitioner. It is also submitted that the petitioner is not involved in any other case.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon an order passed by Coordinate Bench of this Court dated 17.06.2020 in CRM-M-12051-2020 titled “Mewa Singh Vs. State of Punjab”, in which in a case of recovery of 1.7 Kgs 'Heroin' a similar disclosure statement was made against the petitioner therein to the effect that he had supplied the contraband and in the said situation the petitioner therein was granted anticipatory bail. The relevant portion of the said order is reproduced hereinbelow:-
“1. The petitioner has approached this Court seeking grant of anticipatory bail in a case registered against him vide FIR No.133 dated 24.11.2019 under Section 21 NDPS Act Police Station Lohian, District Jalandhar.
2. Reply way of affidavit of Mr. Piara Singh, PPS, Deputy Superintendent ofPolice, Sub-Division Shahkot, District Jalandhar (Rural) on behalf of the respondent-State has been filed, which is taken on record.
3. The allegations in nut-shell are that Bachittar Singh was found in possession of 1.7 Kgs. ‘Heroin’. During the course of interrogation, he made a disclosure statement nominating the petitioner as an accused wherein he stated that the contraband in question had been supplied by the petitioner.
4. Learned couns
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
