Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant :Mr. Mikhail Kad, Advocate
For the Respondent:Ms. Ramta K Chaudhary, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab

JUDGMENT :

Jasjit Singh Bedi, J.

The prayer in this petition under Section 438 Cr.PC is for the grant of anticipatory bail in case FIR No. 19 dated 13.02.2024 under Sections 21/29 (Act No.61) of NDPS Act, 1985 registered at Police Station Sadar Dhuri, District Sangrur.

2. The brief facts of the case are that the instant FIR came to be registered that Lakhvir Singh @ Lakha was seen throwing a transparent polythene envelope taken out from his trouser which was found to contain 50 grams of Heroin.

During investigation Lakhvir Singh @ Lakha disclosed that he had brought the Heroin from Sukhwinder Kaur @ Sukho (petitioner). On the basis of the said disclosure statement Sukhwinder Kaur @ Sukho was nominated as an accused on 15.02.2024 and the offence under Section 29 of the NDPS Act was added.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that as the petitioner has been named in the disclosure statement of her co-accused without any corroborative evidence, she was entitled to the concession of 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 & Ann 2022(1) RCR (Criminal) 762, Sanjeev Chandra Agarwal & Ann 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 and Vikrant Singh Versus State of Punjab, CRM-M-396572020.

4. The Counsel for the State on the other hand has filed reply by way of affidavit dated 24.04.2024 of Mr. Taiwinder Singh Gill, PPS, Deputy Superintendent of Police, Sub Division, Dhuri, District Sangrur in the court today, which is taken on record. While referring to the said reply she contends that the petitioner is a habitual offender and apart from the present case, the petitioner is an under-trial in two other cases bearing FIR No. 191 dated 25.08.2022 under Sections 21 NDPS Act, 1985, Police Station Bhawanigarh and FIR No.54 dated 02.04.2023 under Section 21, 29 of NDPS Act, 1985, Police Station Bhawanigarh. She, therefore, contends that the antecedents of the petitioner did not entitle her to the grant of anticipatory bail in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the present case.

5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties.

6. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Haryana Versus Samarth Kumar (supra), held as under:-

"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 o f the disclosure statement o f the main accused Dinesh Kumar. Therefore, reliance was placed by the High Court in the majority judgment of this Court in Tofan Singh v. 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 a habitual offender.

6. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent in the first of these Appeals contends that the State is guilty of suppression of the vital fact that the respondent was granted regular bail after the charge-sheet was filed and that therefore, nothing survives in the appeal. But, we do not agree.

7. The order of the Special Court granting regular bail to the respondents shows that the said order was passed in pursuance of the anticipatory bail granted by the