JUDGMENT

H.S. Madaan, J. - Case taken up through video conferencing.

1. This petition under Section 438 Cr.P.C. for pre-arrest bail has been filed by the petitioner - Lovepreet Singh @ Luvi, aged 28 years, resident of Narang Ke Syal near Dairy Military Area, Ferozepur Cantt., an accused in FIR No.33 dated 6.4.2021, under Section 21 of NDPS Act, 1985, registered with Police Station Sadar, Moga.

2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case as per the prosecution story, are that on 6.4.2021, a police party from Police Station Sadar, Moga headed by ASI Virender Singh was present at Railway Crossing, Dagru when it received a secret information that Sukhjinder Singh @ Sukha son of Harbhajan Singh, resident of Ferozepur and Lovepreet Singh @ Luvi(present petitioner) were coming towards Moga from Ferozepur in a Innova Car bearing registration No.PB29M-0600 belonging to Sukhjinder Singh @ Sukha, to deliver huge quantity of heroin. Finding the information to be reliable, ASI Virender Singh sent ruqa to Police Station Sadar, Moga, on the basis of which formal FIR was registered. In the meanwhile ASI Malkiat Singh had reached at the spot and he relieved ASI Virender Singh, then the police party laid a NAKA and intercepted the Innova car coming from Ferozepur side. On being inquired, the driver of the car disclosed his name as Sukhjinder Singh @ Sukha. The Innova car was searched. The personal search of Sukhjinder Singh @ Sukha was conducted and Sukhjinder Singh @ Sukha was found to have tied a cloth of yellow colour around his waist. On being checked, it was found to have heroin wrapped in a plastic polythene. The quantity of recovered heroin was found to be 800 gms. The recovered contraband was seized. Accused Sukhjinder Singh @ Sukha was arrested in this case. Innova car bearing registration No.PB29M-0600 was taken into police possession since Sukhjinder Singh @ Sukha could not produce any documents with regard to ownership of the said car. During the course of his interrogation, Sukhjinder Singh @ Sukha disclosed that petitioner/accused Lovepreet Singh @ Luvi had handed over the said heroin to him directing him to take the consignment to Moga and then to contact him, however, on the way Sukhjinder Singh @ Sukha had been arrested by the police.

3. After being nominated in this case, apprehending his arrest, the present petitioner had approached the Court of Sessions at Moga seeking grant of pre-arrest bail by filing an application, which was assigned to Judge, Special Court, Moga. However, his such application was dismissed by the said Court vide detailed order dated 22.4.2021. As such, the present petitioner has approached this Court by way of filing the instant petition asking for the similar relief, which request is being opposed by the State counsel.

4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties besides going through the records.

5. The first and foremost argument advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner was that the petitioner was named by his co-accused Sukhjinder Singh @ Sukha in his disclosure statement made to the police; such statement is hit by Section 25 of the Evidence Act and cannot be taken into consideration; there is no other evidence available on record to show that petitioner/accused has committed any offence, therefore, no prima facie case is made out against the petitioner/accused.

6. Whereas, this argument has been controverted by the State counsel contending that petitioner is specifically named in the FIR and it is erroneous to say that his name cropped up in the disclosure statement of co-accused only.

7. After hearing the rival contentions, I find that the petitioner is specifically named in the FIR and it is not a case where he was nominated as supplier of the contraband by Sukhjinder Singh @ Sukha for the first time in the statement made by him to the police.

8. Even otherwise, Section 30 of the Indian Evidence Act provides that when more person than one are being tried jointly for the same offence, and a confess