Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Vikas Bahl, J.
Sunil – Appellant
Versus
State of Haryana – Respondent
CRM-M-8910-2022
Decided On : 03-03-2022
NDPS Act - Anticipatory Bail - Sections 21(b)/27-A - 21 NDPS Act, 1985, 15, 18, 27A, 29 of NDPS Act, 1985, 140, 188, 216, 419, 420, 467, 468, 471, 474 IPC, 6 of Official Secret Act - Summary: The court granted anticipatory bail to the petitioner under Section 438 Cr.P.C. as the petitioner was not named in the FIR and no recovery was made from the petitioner. The petitioner was solely implicated based on the disclosure statement of a co-accused, and the recovery of narcotics was of non-commercial quantity. The court relied on previous judgments and held that the petitioner should not be denied bail solely on the basis of the disclosure statement. The court emphasized that the admissibility and veracity of the disclosure statement would be tested during the trial. The court ordered the petitioner to join the investigation and abide by the conditions under Section 438(2) of Cr.P.C.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner sought anticipatory bail in a case registered under Sections 21(b)/27-A of the NDPS Act, 1985. The petitioner was not named in the FIR and no recovery was made from the petitioner. The petitioner was solely implicated based on the disclosure statement of a co-accused.
Finding of the Court:
The court granted anticipatory bail to the petitioner, emphasizing that the recovery of narcotics was of non-commercial quantity and the petitioner should not be denied bail solely on the basis of the disclosure statement. The court ordered the petitioner to join the investigation and abide by the conditions under Section 438(2) of Cr.P.C.
Issues: Anticipatory bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C. based on the disclosure statement of a co-accused, admissibility and veracity of the disclosure statement, and the petitioner's involvement in other cases.
Ratio Decidendi: The admissibility and veracity of the disclosure statement would be tested during the trial. The petitioner should not be denied bail solely on the basis of the disclosure statement. The petitioner was ordered to join the investigation and abide by the conditions under Section 438(2) of Cr.P.C.
Final Decision: The court allowed the petition for anticipatory bail and ordered the petitioner to be released on bail subject to fulfilling certain conditions. The court emphasized that the observations made in the bail petition were only for the purpose of adjudicating the bail petition and did not express an opinion on the merits of the case.
JUDGMENT :
Vikas Bahl, J.
1. This is a first petition under Section 438 Cr.P.C. for anticipatory bail to the petitioner in FIR no.38 dated 05.02.2022 registered under Sections 21(b)/27-A of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (in short 'NDPS Act') at Police Station Bhuna, District Fatehabad.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner has not been named in the FIR and no recovery has been effected from the petitioner. The petitioner has only been implicated on the basis of statement of co-accused Amarjeet @ Amni from whom the alleged recovery of 30 grams 45 milligrams of heroin has been effected. It has been stated that even the said recovery from Amarjeet @ Amni is of non-commercial quantity as the commercial quantity of heroin is stipulated at 250 grams.
3. Reliance has been placed upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case titled as “Tofan Singh vs. State of Tamil Nadu” reported as 2021 (4) SCC 1 and upon the judgment passed in CRM-M-12051-2020, by a coordinate Bench of this Court dated 17.06.2021 titled as “Mewa Singh Vs. State of Punjab” and the judgment passed in CRM-M-12997-2020 titled as “Daljit Singh Vs. State of Haryana”, to contend that merely on the basis of the disclosure statement of the co-accused the petitioner should not be denied the concession of bail. The relevant portion of Mewa Singh's judgment is reproduced hereinbelow:-
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 at the spot and that the only evidence against him is in the shape of disclosure statement, the admissibility and veracity of which would be tested during the course of trial. As regards the other three cases which are stated to be pending against the petitioner, the learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that even in the said cases he has been falsely implicated and was never arrested at the spot and has been granted anticipatory bail in all three cases.
8. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and that it is a case where the petitioner has been nominated solely on the basis of disclosure statement, the petition is accepted and it is ordered that the petitioner in the event of his arrest shall be released on bail subject to his furnishing personal bonds and surety bonds to the satisfaction of Arresting/Investigating Officer. However, the petitioner shall join the investigation as and when called upon to do so and cooperate with the Arresting/Investigatin
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
