The absence of recovery from the petitioner and reliance on the disclosure statement of the co-accused can be grounds for granting anticipatory bail.

JUDGMENT

Vikas Bahl, J. (Oral) - Prayer in the present petition is for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner in FIR No.345 dated 02.05.2022 registered under Section 61 of the Punjab Excise Act, 1914 (Haryana Amendment Bill, 2020) at Police Station City Sirsa.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that in the present case, the alleged recovery has been effected from the co-accused namely Biru @ Sonu. It is further submitted that the liquor which has been recovered is not illicit liquor and even the place from where the recovery has been effected does not belong to the petitioner and the petitioner has been implicated solely on the basis of disclosure statement of Biru @ Sonu from whom, the recovery has been effected.

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-120512020 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 as the statement made by co-accused before the police is inadmissible in evidence.

4. Notice of motion.

5. On advance notice, Mr. Bhupender Singh, DAG, 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 and submitted that 227 bottles and 25 quarters of english liquor have been recovered from Biru @ Sonu and the petitioner has been involved in the case on the basis of disclosure statement made by Biru @ Sonu. It is further submitted that loss has been caused to State Exchequer on account of the same and that the petitioner is involved in other cases also. The other factual aspects have not been disputed by the learned State Counsel.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner, in rebuttal to the abovesaid argument, has submitted in order to show his bona fide, the petitioner is ready to deposit an amount of Rs.5,000/- with the Haryana Excise Department within a period of three weeks from today without admitting his liability.

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

8. 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, District Jalandhar (Rural) on behalf of the respondentState 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 contra