Bail may be granted if the accused is named in a co-accused's disclosure statement without corroborative evidence, especially after substantial custody time, aligning with the right to a speedy trial.

JUDGMENT

Mr. Jasjit Singh Bedi, J. (Oral)

The Prayer in this petition under Section 439 Cr.PC is for the grant of regular bail in case FIR No.79 dated 17.03.2021 under Section 21, 29 of NDPS Act, 1985, section 14 of Foreigners Act, 1946 and Section 3 of Indian Passport Act, 1920 registered at Police Station Ajnala, District Amritsar Rural.

2. The brief facts of the case are that while the BSF party was on patrolling duty, on a specific input a special ambush was laid in the area of D.S. Pura near the Indo-Pak border fence. The officials observed the suspected moments from the Pakistan side. They suspected smuggling and therefore, the area was marked for a search operation. After a thorough search the recovery of a Phoenix Battery concealed underground was effected. When the battery was opened white brown colour Heroin was recovered which on being weighed was found to be 6.770 Kgs.

After the registration of the FIR secret information was received that Heroin which was recovered from near the fence was to be received by 02 youngsters namely Vishal Sharma and Prabhjeet Singh (petitioner) who were waiting in a car near Surjit Hospital, Amritsar along with the money. If a raid was conducted they could be apprehended. The police party reached the spot but on seeing the police vehicle, the occupants of the vehicle drove away. The car was apprehended and on being asked, the occupants of the car disclosed their names as Prabhjeet Singh and Vishal Sharma. The recovery of Rs.15 lacs was effected from the vehicle.

During the course of the investigation, the disclosure statement of accused Vishal Sharma was recorded who disclosed that he had come in contact with one Satnam Singh who had moved to Malaysia. On the instructions of said Satnam Singh, he had become a party to the present occurrence for the sake of money. During investigation it also came to light that Satnam Singh in connivance with Pakistani smugglers had brought the Heroin.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner had been falsely implicated in the present case. He contends that the name of the petitioner figured in the disclosure statement of his co-accused. Pursuant to his arrest, no recovery whatsoever had been effected from him. In the one other case one another case registered against him under the NDPS Act bearing FIR No.14 dated 20.01.2021 under Sections 21C, 25, 29 of the NDPS Act, 1985, Police Station STF, District SAS Nagar, Mohali he had been granted the concession of bail by this Court vide order dated 06.12.2022. Therefore, he was entitled to the grant of bail in this case as well. Reliance is placed on the judgments in the cases of Tofan Singh v. State of Tamil Nadu, 2020 AIR (Supreme Court) 5592, Rakesh Kumar Singla v. Union of India, 2021(1) RCR (Criminal) 704, Surinder Kumar Khanna v. Intelligence Officer Directorate of Revenue Intelligence, 2018(3) RCR (Criminal) 954, State by (NCB) Bengaluru v. Pallulabid Ahmad Arimutta & Anr. 2022(1) RCR (Criminal) 762, Sanjeev Chandra Agarwal & Anr. v. Union of India 2021(4) RCR (Criminal) 590, Vijay Singh v. The State of Haryana, bearing Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No.(s).1266/2023 decided on 17.05.2023, State of Haryana v. Samarth Kumar 2022 (3) RCR (Criminal) 991 and Vikrant Singh v. State of Punjab, CRM-M-39657-2020", wherein it has been held that the accused can be granted the concession of regular bail where he has been named in the disclosure statement of his co-accused and there is no other corroborative evidence against the accused.

4. He further contends that in the instant case the petitioner is in custody since 17.03.2021 and only 01 out of the 24 prosecution witnesses have been examined so far and, therefore, as the Trial of the present case was not likely to be concluded soon, he was entitled to the concession of bail. Reliance is placed on the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Nitish Adhikary @ Bapan v. The State of West Bengal, SLP (Crl.) Nos.5769/2022 ar