IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

215 CRM-M-34400-2024 (O&M)

Date of decision: 08.01.2025 Pardeep Kumar alias Pradeep Kumar ...Petitioner Versus State of Haryana ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANISHA BATRA Present:- Mr. Satnam Singh Gill, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Neeraj Poswal, AAG, Haryana.

MANISHA BATRA, J. (Oral)

1. Prayer in this petition, filed under Section 439 of Cr.P.C., is for grant of regular bail to the petitioner in case arising out of FIR No. 125 dated 01.06.2024, registered under Sections 22C and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 at Police Station Kalka, District Panchkula.

2. Brief facts of the case relevant for the disposal of the present petition are that on 01.06.2024, on the basis of secret information, co-accused Vimal Kumar was apprehended by a police party headed by SI Satinder Singh and recovery of 1200 tablets of LOMOTIL was effected from him. He was formally arrested at the spot. During the course of investigation, the disclosure statement of above named co-accused was recorded, wherein he stated that he had purchased the recovered contraband from the present petitioner, who used to run a medical clinic. On the basis of the said disclosure, the petitioner was nominated in this case and was arrested on 03.06.2024. After completion of necessary investigation and usual formalities, challan was presented in the Court and presently, the petitioner along with co-accused is facing trial for commission of aforesaid mentioned offence.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case. The petitioner was not found at the spot and has been involved in this case on the basis of the disclosure statement made by the co-accused, which is not admissible in law against the petitioner. There is nothing on record to connect the petitioner with the subject offence. The story put forth by the police party is concocted one. The mandatory provisions of the NDPS Act were not complied with. Investigation has since been completed and challan has been presented. The trial is likely to take time. The petitioner is in custody since 03.06.2024. No useful purpose would be served by keeping him in custody anymore. It is, therefore, urged that the petition deserves to be allowed. Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon the order dated 11.12.2024 passed by the co-ordinate Bench of this Court in CRM-M-33921- 2024, whereby the accused was granted concession of regular bail in a similar case.

4. Status report has been filed by the respondent-State. It is submitted therein and learned Assistant Advocate General, Haryana has argued that though the petitioner was nominated in this case on the basis of the disclosure statement but during the course of investigation, his complicity in commission of subject offence has been duly established. The petitioner used to sell intoxicant tablets to the above named co-accused by procuring the same from one Sanju, who is a resident of Bareli. During the course of recovery and further investigation, proper procedure as prescribed under the NDPS Act was followed. It is submitted that since a commercial quantity of the contraband has been recovered in this case, the rigors of Section 37 of the NDPS Act would be attracted. Trial is going at a proper pace. It is also argued that if the petitioner is released on bail, he may abscond or indulge in the similar offences. It is, thus, argued that the petition is liable to be dismissed.

5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties at considerable length and have also perused the material placed on record.

6. The petitioner has been nominated in this case on the basis of the disclosure made by above named co-accused, from whose possession; recovery of 1200 intoxicant tablets was effected, which obviously falls under the commercial quantity. Hence, the rigors of Section 37 of the NDPS Act would be attracted in