The main legal point established in the judgment is the admissibility and veracity of the disclosure statement as evidence, and the requirement for the petitioner to join the investigation as and when called upon to do so.

JUDGMENT

Vikas Bahl, J. - This is a first petition filed by the petitioner under Section 438 Cr.P.C for grant of anticipatory bail him in case FIR No.0073 dated 10.08.2020 (Annexure P-1) under Sections 22 and 29 of the NDPS Act, 1985 registered at Police Station Tallewal, District Barnala.

2. On 13.10.2020 when the matter had came up for hearing, a Coordinate Bench of this Court was pleased to pass the following order:-

"This is a petition that has been filed for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioners in the FIR No. 73 dated 10.08.2020 under Sections 22 and 29 of NDPS Act registered at Police Station Tallewal, District Barnala.

It is inter-alia contended that the name of the petitioner is not reflected in the FIR and he has been nominated in the present case on the disclosure statement of co-accused from whom all recovery has already been effected and nothing is to be recovered from the petitioner herein while further stating that he is ready and willing to join the investigation.

Notice of motion for 18.02.2021.

Ms. Monika Jalota, DAG, Punjab appearing through the medium of video conferencing accepts notice on behalf of respondent-State.

In the meanwhile, the petitioner is directed to join the investigation within a fortnight and on his doing so, in the event of arrest, the petitioner be released on interim bail, subject to his furnishing requisite bonds to the satisfaction of Arresting/Investigating Officer. However, the petitioner shall continue to join the investigation as and when called upon to do so and shall abide by the conditions incorporated under Section 438(2) Cr.P.C."

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that petitioner joined the investigation and there is no other case against him.

4. Learned State counsel, on instructions from ASI Ranjit Singh, has stated that the petitioner has joined the investigation and is not required for custodial interrogation.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon an order passed by Coordinate Bench of this Court in CRM-M-12051-2020 dated 17.06.2020 titled as "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 of Police, 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 counsel for the petitioner has submitted that he has falsely been implicated in the present case and was never arrested at the spot and that the alleged disclosure statement is not worth credence.

5. Opposing the petition, learned State counsel has submitted that keeping in view the antecedents of the petitioner his complicity is clearly evident inasmuch as he stands involved in three other cases i.e. FIR No.43 dated 2.4.2016 under Sections 15, 21, 22 NDPS Act, Police Station Sultanpur Lodhi; FIR No.5 dated 5.1.2020 under Sections 307, 186, 332, 353, 224, 225, 427, 148, 149 IPC, Police Station Sultanpur Lodhi & FIR No.193 dated 193 dated 22.11.2019 under Sections 15, 21, 25, 29 NDPS Act, Police Station Kartarpur.

6. I have considered rival submissions addressed before this Court.

7. It is not disputed that the petitioner was never apprehended a