Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Vikas Bahl, J.
Ram Singh @ Ramu @ Ramu Siteka – Appellant
Vs.
State of Punjab – Respondent
CRM-M-54786-2021
Decided On : 04-01-2022
Anticipatory Bail - Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act - Sections 21, 29 - Summary of Acts and Sections: The court discussed the provisions of Section 438 of the Cr.P.C and the interpretation of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, specifically focusing on the implications of disclosure statements and the quantity of narcotics involved. The court's decision was influenced by the legal principles established in previous judgments related to similar cases.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner sought anticipatory bail in a case where he was implicated based on a disclosure statement made by co-accused, without any recovery being made from the petitioner. The alleged recovery from the co-accused was 10 grams of heroin, which the petitioner argued did not constitute a commercial quantity.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioner should be granted anticipatory bail based on the lack of recovery from the petitioner, the minimal quantity of heroin involved, and the precedents set by previous judgments in similar cases.
Issues: The issues revolved around the admissibility and credibility of the disclosure statement, the quantity of narcotics involved, and the petitioner's cooperation with the investigation.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the lack of recovery from the petitioner, the minimal quantity of heroin involved, and the legal principles established in previous judgments related to similar cases.
Final Decision: The court allowed the petition for anticipatory bail, ordering the petitioner's release on bail subject to certain conditions, while emphasizing that the decision did not express a final opinion on the merits of the case.
JUDGMENT :
Vikas Bahl, J. (Oral)
This is the first petition under Section 438 Cr.P.C. for grant of anticipatory/pre-arrest bail to the petitioner in FIR No.169 dated 06.12.2021, registered under Sections 21 & 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (Section 29 of the NDPS Act added later on), at Police Station Boha, District Mansa.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that in the present case no recovery has been effected from the petitioner and he has only been implicated on the basis of disclosure statement made by co-accused, namely, Surjit Singh and Lakhpreet Singh, from whom the recovery of 10 grams of heroin has been made. It is submitted that the petitioner is not even remotely linked with the said recovery and he is not involved in any other case under the NDPS Act. It is also submitted that even the alleged recovery from the co-accused would not fall in the category of commercial quantity and in fact is marginally higher than the small quantity.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon an order passed by a 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:-
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 investi
The admissibility and veracity of the disclosure statement, the petitioner's involvement in other cases, and the non-commercial quantity of narcotics were key legal considerations in granting anticip....
The absence of recovery from the accused and the quantity of the alleged drug are crucial factors in considering the grant of anticipatory bail under the NDPS Act.
The legal principle established is that implicating a person solely based on a disclosure statement without recovery and in the absence of safeguards infringes constitutional guarantees and may warra....
The inadmissibility of confessional statements made before police officers and the requirement of non obstante clause to convict a person under the NDPS Act without safeguards.
The court emphasized that a person's involvement based solely on a co-accused's disclosure statement may not be sufficient to deny anticipatory bail under the NDPS Act.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the need to consider the role of the accused in the case and other circumstances before rejecting bail applications solely based on criminal antece....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the principle for granting anticipatory bail in cases where a person has only been proceeded against on the basis of a disclosure statement of a co....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the consideration of evidence, false implication, and readiness to cooperate in granting anticipatory bail.
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
