Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Jasjit Singh Bedi, J.
Lovepreet Singh @ Lovpreet Singh – Appellant
Versus
State Of Punjab – Respondent
CRM-M-40906-2022
Decided On : 12-09-2023
NDPS Act - Anticipatory Bail - Section 21 of the NDPS Act, 1985 (later Section 29) - [Section 21 of the NDPS Act, 1985 (Section 29 of the NDPS Act later on)] - The court discussed the application of Section 21 of the NDPS Act, 1985 (later Section 29) and its interpretation in the context of the petitioner's involvement in drug-related activities. The court considered the evidence, disclosure statements, and recoveries made in the case, and referred to relevant case laws to determine the grant of anticipatory bail.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner sought anticipatory bail in a case under Section 21 of the NDPS Act, 1985 (later Section 29) after being named in the disclosure statement of co-accused involved in drug trafficking. The petitioner was also involved in another case under the NDPS Act.
Finding of the Court:
The court analyzed the evidence, including disclosure statements and recoveries, and considered the petitioner's criminal antecedents. The court referred to relevant case laws and concluded that the petitioner, being a habitual offender, was not entitled to anticipatory bail.
Issues: The main issue was the grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner in a drug trafficking case under the NDPS Act, considering the evidence, disclosure statements, and the petitioner's criminal antecedents.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the interpretation of Section 21 of the NDPS Act, 1985 (later Section 29), the evidence presented, and the petitioner's criminal antecedents, as well as relevant case laws that established the criteria for granting anticipatory bail in drug-related cases.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the petition for anticipatory bail, emphasizing the necessity of custodial interrogation to effect recoveries and conclude the investigation, given the petitioner's criminal antecedents and involvement in multiple cases under the NDPS Act.
JUDGMENT
Jasjit Singh Bedi, J. - The prayer in the present petition under Section 438 Cr.P.C is for the grant of anticipatory bail in case bearing FIR No.78 dated 18.08.2022 registered under Section 21 of the NDPS Act, 1985 (Section 29 of the NDPS Act later on) at Police Station City Morinda, District Rupnagar.
2. The brief facts of the case are that while the police party was on patrolling duty at the Kharar-Ludhiana Bypass Road Morinda on the T-point going towards Village Datarpur, a Swift Dzire car came from the side of Village Datarpur. On seeing the blockade, the driver of the car stopped near the blockade and tried to turn the car back. The police party apprehended the driver. A bulky transparent plastic polythene bag (with a zip) through which heroin was visible was found lying near the gear lever. On enquiry, the driver of the car disclosed his name as Jagpreet Singh @ Jaggi son of Dilbagh Singh and the person sitting on the adjoining seat disclosed his name as Sarabjot Singh @ Tota son of Major Singh. From the transparent polythene packet, 20 grams of heroin came to be recovered.
During the course of investigation, Jagpreet Singh @ Jaggi and Sarabjot Singh @ Tota disclosed the names of Sukhwinder Kaur @ Sukhi, Devraj @ Debu, Jagpal Singh @ Gora who were nominated in the present FIR and the offence under Section 29 of the NDPS Act was added. Thereafter, Sukhwinder Kaur @ Sukhi was arrested and from the plastic polythene bag which she had thrown away, 80 grams of heroin came to be recovered. She also got recovered the proceeds of crime in the shape of gold and silver jewellery, cash and vehicles from the store room of her house. Similarly, Devraj @ Debu and Jagpal Singh @ Gora were also arrested.
During the course of her interrogation, Sukhwinder Kaur @ Sukhi disclosed that Kuljit Singh Dhanoa of her village was selling drugs and he was a friend of her son Lovepreet Singh @ Lovpreet Singh (petitioner). Both Kuljit Singh Dhanoa and her son Lovepreet Singh @ Lovpreet Singh were dealing in drugs. On the basis of the said statement, Kuljit Singh Dhanoa and Lovepreet Singh @ Lovpreet Singh were nominated in the present FIR.
After the completion of the investigation, the report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. was presented against Sukhwinder Kaur @ Sukhi, Devraj @ Debu, Jagpal @ Gora, Jagpreet Singh @ Jaggi and Sarabjot Singh @ Tota.
3. The petitioner had sought the concession of anticipatory bail and on 08.09.2022, the following order was passed:-
'The prayer in the present petition under Section 438 Cr.P.C. is for the grant of pre-arrest bail in case bearing FIR No.78 dated 18.08.2022 registered under Section 21 of the NDPS Act, 1985, (Section 29 of the NDPS Act added later on) with Police Station City Morinda, District Runagar.
The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that initially Jagpreet Singh @ Jaggi son of Dilbagh Singh and Sarabjot Singh @ Tota son of Major Singh were arrested with 20 grams of heroin. They disclosed the name of one Sukhwinder Kaur, who was arrested and a recovery of 80 grams of heroin was effected from her. During the course of her interrogation, she disclosed that her son Lovepreet Singh @ Lovpreet Singh (the present petitioner) was an accomplice with her. He contends that other than this evidence, there is no evidence available on the file against him. He contends that the judgment in the case of State of Haryana Versus Samarth Kumar, 2022(3) R.C.R. (Criminal) 991 would not apply to the facts of the present case as the recovery from each of the accused is of non-commercial quantity of contraband. Even otherwise, the petitioner is of the age of 19 years and no other case under the NDPS Act stands registered against him.
Notice of motion for 21.11.2022.
Mr. Kirat Singh Sidhu, D.A.G, Punjab accepts notice on behalf of the respondent-State.
In the meantime, the petitioner is directed to appear before the SHO/Investigating Officer to join investigation and in the event of his arrest, he shall be released on bail
The main legal point established in the judgment is that a habitual offender involved in drug-related activities is not entitled to anticipatory bail under the NDPS Act, and custodial interrogation m....
A habitual offender under the NDPS Act is not entitled to anticipatory bail based on weak evidence from co-accused.
Anticipatory bail in NDPS Act cases may be denied to a habitual offender, even if originally implicated via a co-accused's disclosure statement, due to the necessity of custodial interrogation and th....
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
