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 warrant the grant of anticipatory bail.

JUDGMENT

Vikas Bahl, J. (Oral). - Prayer in the present petition is for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner in FIR No.249 dated 20.06.2022 registered under Sections 21/29/61/85 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 at Police Station Ellenabad, District Sirsa.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that in the present case, no recovery has been effected from the present petitioner and he has been implicated solely on the basis of the disclosure statement of the co- accused namely Jabbar Singh from whom the recovery of 15 grams of heroin has been effected. It is further submitted that recovery from the said Jabbar Singh is far less than the commercial quantity stiulated as the commercial quantity starts from 250 grams.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Tofan Singh Vs. State of Tamil Nadu, reported as 2021(1) RCR (Criminal) 1, an order passed by Coordinate Bench of this Court dated 17.06.2020 in CRM-M-12051-2020 titled 'Mewa Singh Vs. State of Punjab', and an order of another Coordinate Bench dated 16.07.2021 passed in CRM-M-12997-2020 titled as 'Daljit Singh Vs. State of Haryana' to contend that in such like cases if a person has only been proceeded against on the basis of disclosure statement of co-accused and no recovery has been effected from the petitioner, then he should be granted the benefit of anticipatory bail and statement made by co-accused before the police is inadmissible in evidence.

4. Notice of motion.

5. On advance notice, Mr. Praveen Bhadu, AAG, Haryana, appears and accepts notice on behalf of the State and has submitted that he is fully prepared to argue the matter and assist this Court. He has opposed the present petition for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner on the ground that the petitioner is involved in three other cases.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner, in rebuttal to the abovesaid argument, has submitted that in all the other cases, the petitioner has been granted anticipatory bail and the petitioner has been implicated on the basis of disclosure statement of co-accused from whom the recovery has been effected and has relied upon the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in 'Maulana Mohd. Amir Rashadi vs. State of U.P. and another', reported as 2012 (2) SCC 382 to contend that the facts and circumstances of the present case are to be seen and the bail application of the petitioner cannot be rejected solely on the ground that the petitioner is involved in another case. The relevant portion of the said judgment is reproduced hereinbelow:-

'As observed by the High Court, merely on the basis of criminal antecedents, the claim of the second respondent cannot be rejected. In other words, it is the duty of the Court to find out the role of the accused in the case in which he has been charged and other circumstances such as possibility of fleeing away from the jurisdiction of the Court etc.'

7. This Court has heard the learned counsel for the parties and has perused the paper book.

8. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Tofan Singh's case (Supra), had observed as under:-

'152. Thus, to arrive at the conclusion that a confessional statement made before an officer designated under section 42 or section 53 can be the basis to convict a person under the NDPS Act, without any non obstante clause doing away with section 25 of the Evidence Act, and without any safeguards, would be a direct infringement of the constitutional guarantees contained in Articles 14, 20(3) and 21 of the Constitution of India.'

9. A Coordinate Bench of this Court Mewa Singh's case (Supra), had passed the following order-

'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 ofPolice, Sub-Division Shahkot,