The main legal point established in the judgment is the consideration of substantial custody and the admissibility and veracity of disclosure statements in bail applications under the NDPS Act.

JUDGMENT :

Vikas Bahl, J.

1. This is the second petition under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. for grant of regular bail in FIR No.227 dated 19.10.2020, under Section 22 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred as 'NDPS Act') (Section 29 of the NDPS Act added later on), registered at Police Station Sadar Patti, District Tarn Taran.

2. The case of the prosecution is that the recovery of 1250 intoxicant tablets was made from one Balwant Singh and the said Balwant Singh has named the present petitioner in his disclosure statement, on the basis of which, the petitioner has been arrested in the present case and has been in custody since 20.10.2020.

3. Learned Senior counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner has solely been implicated on the basis of the disclosure statement made by co-accused Balwant Singh and no recovery has been effected from the present petitioner and in fact, there is no incriminating evidence against the petitioner other than the said disclosure statement.

4. Learned Senior counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the upon the judgment passed in CRM-M-12051-2020, by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court dated 17.06.2020 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, the petitioner cannot be denied the benefit of regular bail. It is further submitted that in fact, the petitioner has been running a retail chemist shop under the name of M/s Arora Medical Store at Amritsar road, for which he has a valid licence, valid up to 31.12.2022 and a copy of the said licence has been annexed as Annexure P-2 with the petition. It is argued that in fact, the petitioner has got an FIR No.182 dated 18.12.2014 registered against one ASI Baljinder Singh under Sections 7 and 13(2) of the PC Act and since the said time the petitioner has been got involved in five false cases so as to pressurize the petitioner to compromise the matter with the said ASI Baljinder Singh. It is submitted that in FIR No.82/2017 registered under Sections 22 and 25 of the NDPS Act, a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court has granted stay of investigation vide order dated 08.11.2017 and in FIR No.77 dated 03.08.2017 and FIR No.152 dated 03.08.2017, the petitioner has been discharged, whereas in FIR No.13 dated 23.01.2020 and FIR No.53 dated 30.06.2020, the petitioner has been granted the benefit of anticipatory bail and regular bail, respectively. It is further submitted that in fact on 20.10.2020, the petitioner was forcibly picked up while going on the way to his house, by the police officials, who came in civil dress and forced the petitioner to compromise the matter with ASI Baljinder Singh and upon his refusal to do the same, his custody was handed over to the police officials of Police Station Patti, District Taran Taran. With respect to the same, the petitioner had made phone calls and sent messages to helpline No.181 and 7696181181, the copy of the screen shots of which, has been annexed as Annexure P-3. It is further submitted that the petitioner has been in custody since 20.10.2020 and out of the 13 witnesses, no witness has been examined as yet. Learned Senior counsel for the petitioner further submitted that although the petitioner had filed the first regular bail on 05.08.2021 and the same was withdrawn at that stage, but even after passing of the said order, 5 ½ months has elapsed and no witness has been examined and the trial is not likely to conclude in near future, moreso, in view of the third wave of the pandemic, which the country is facing. It is stated that the said circumstance would be a substantial subsequent circumstance so as to entitle the petitioner to file the present second regular bail.

5. Learned State counsel on the other hand has opposed the present application for regular bail and has submitted that as far the false implication of the p