The main legal point established in the judgment is the application of legal principles regarding the admissibility of disclosure statements and the circumstances disentitling the petitioner for grant of anticipatory bail under the NDPS Act, 1985.

JUDGMENT

Vikas Bahl, J. (Oral) - This is a first petition under Section 438 Cr.P.C. for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner in FIR No.72 dated 12.06.2022 registered under Sections 15 and 29 (added later on) of the NDPS Act, 1985 at Police Station Lohian, District Jalandhar.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner was not named in the FIR and the recovery has been effected from co-accused, namely, Rajinder Singh alias Vicky and Sahil Kumar and the petitioner was implicated on the basis of the disclosure statement of the said co-accused. Petitioner is not the registered owner of the truck from which the alleged recovery has been effected. Reliance is placed on the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Tofan Singh Vs. State of Tamil Nadu, reported as 2021(1) RCR (Criminal) 1, to contend that the statement of the coaccused before the Police implicating the accused is not admissible in evidence and thus, concession of anticipatory bail should be granted.

3. Learned State counsel on the other hand, has submitted the status report and has opposed the present petition for grant of anticipatory bail. It is submitted that as per the case of the prosecution, it was Rajinder Singh alias Vicky and Sahil Kumar, who were travelling in a truck bearing registration No.PB-11-C-0709, when they were apprehended and recovery of 55 kg and 200 gram of poppy husk had been effected from them and the said quantity would fall within the ambit of commercial quantity. It is submitted that in the disclosure statements of the co-accused persons, they have stated that the present petitioner i.e., Pargat Singh, is their boss and had employed them to deliver the poppy husk and it was on his asking, that they were carrying the said poppy husk in the truck belonging to the petitioner along with the petitioner. It is submitted that although, the registered owner of the truck is Sukhwinder Singh but the petitioner on 14.01.2022, had purchased the same from the said Sukhwinder Singh and the possession of the same was taken from the said Sukhwinder Singh. Sale and purchase agreement of the said truck has been signed on 11.02.2022 by Sukhwinder Singh and Pargat Singh and the same was written on a stamp paper.

4. Reliance has been placed upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Haryana Vs. Samarth Kumar reported as 2022(3) R.C.R (Criminal) 991 to contend that in such a situation the petitioner is not entitled to the concession of anticipatory bail.

5. This Court has heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the paperbook.

6. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of State of Haryana Vs. Samarth 2022(3) R.C.R (Criminal) 991 has held as under:-

'Leave granted.

2. Both these appeals arise out of independent orders passed by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh granting pre-arrest bail to the respondents herein who were implicated for alleged offences under Sections 17, 27A and 85 of the NDPS Act, 1985.

3. Heard learned Additional Advocate General for the State of Haryana and learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents.

4. The High Court decided to grant pre-arrest bail to the respondents on the only ground that no recovery was effected from the respondents and that they had been implicated only on the basis of the disclosure statement of the main accused Dinesh Kumar. Therefore, reliance was placed by the High Court in the majority judgment of this Court in Tofan Singh vs. State of Tamil Nadu reported in (2021) 4 SCC 1.

5. But, it is contended by the learned Additional Advocate General appearing on behalf of the State of Haryana that on the basis of the anticipatory bail granted to the respondents, the Special Court was constrained to grant regular bail even to the main accused-Dinesh Kumar and he jumped bail. Fortunately, the main accused-Dinesh Kumar has again been apprehended.According to the learned Additional Advocate General, the respondent in the second of these appeals is also