A habitual offender under the NDPS Act is not entitled to anticipatory bail based on weak evidence from co-accused.

Judgment

Mr. 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.143 dated 18.06.2023 registered under Sections 21 (c), 22(c) and 25 of the NDPS Act at Police Station Munak, Karnal, Haryana.

2. The brief facts of the case are that while the police party was on patrolling duty, secret information was received that Pardeep son of Narinder who used to sell intoxicating medicines would be coming from Village Munak to his sister’s house at Bal Ragdan. In case, a Nakabandi was set up, he could be apprehended.

3. Based on the aforementioned information, the petitioner came to be apprehended. The recovery of 240 strips each strips 50 tablets i.e. 12000 tablets of Alprazolam tablets and 70 MTP kits came to be recovered from him.

4. During the course of the investigation, Pradeep revealed that he had purchased the said intoxicating tablets from Mohammad Rayyan Ansari (petitioner) resident of Arora Medical Store. In pursuance to the disclosure statement, raids were conducted at the premises of Arora Medical, Shop No.46, District Council Market, Muzzafarnagar (UP) and at House No.1005/1, K Rehmat Nagar, South Khaladpur, Muzzafarnagar (UP). However, the petitioner was not found present there.

5. The call details of Mobile No.9588529710 of Pardeep and Mobile No.8307590728 of the petitioner were obtained from Cyber Cell, DPO, Karnal and the perusal of the call details, it was found that two accused were in touch with each other.

6. It also transpired that the petitioner was an accused in one other case bearing FIR No.419 dated 17.06.2023 under Section 21C, 22C, 29 NDPS Act, Police Station Assandh along with his co-accused Pradeep in which case he is absconding.

7. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner is named in the disclosure statement of his co-accused which has very little evidentiary value. Therefore, he was entitled to the concession of anticipatory bail. Reliance is placed on the judgments in the cases of Tofan Singh Versus State of Tamil Nadu , 2020 AIR (Supreme Court) 5592, Rakesh Kumar Singla Versus Union of India , 2021(1) RCR (Criminal) 704, Surinder Kumar Khanna Versus Intelligence Officer Directorate of Revenue Intelligence , 2018(3) RCR (Criminal) 954, State by (NCB) Bengaluru Versus Pallulabid Ahmad Arimutta & Anr. 2022(1) RCR (Criminal) 762, Sanjeev Chandra Agarwal & Anr. Versus Union of India 2021(4) RCR (Criminal) 590, Vijay Singh Versus The State of Haryana, bearing Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No.(s).1266/2023 decided on 17.05.2023, Vikrant Singh Versus State of Punjab , CRM-M-39657-2020 and Soni Singh @ Chamkaur Sahib, CRM-M-31645-2022 , decided on 20.10.2022.

8. A status report dated 06.09.2023 by way of an affidavit of Sandeep Singh, HPS, Deputy Superintendent of Police, Assandh, Karnal has been filed on behalf of the State by the learned counsel for the State. The same is taken on record. He contends that the petitioner is a habitual offender. One other case bearing FIR No.419 dated 17.06.2023 under Section 21C, 22C, 29 NDPS Act Police Station Assandh stands registered against the petitioner in which he is absconding. He, therefore, contends that the antecedents of the petitioner did not entitle him to the grant of anticipatory bail.

9. I have heard the learned counsel for both the parties at length.

10. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Haryana Versus Samarth Kumar 2022 (3) RCR (Criminal) 991, held as under:-

“4. The High Court decided to grant pre-arrest bail to the respondents on the only ground that no recovery was effec