IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH (250)

CRM-M-48002-2023 (O & M)

Date of Decision:-25.02.2025 Jaswant Singh @ Shinda ......Petitioner.

Vs.

State of Punjab ......Respondent.

CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASJIT SINGH BEDI Present:- Mr. K.S. Brar, Advocate, for the Petitioner.

Mr. Rajinder Singh Bhatta, DAG, Punjab.

***

JASJIT SINGH BEDI, J.(ORAL The prayer in this petition under Section 439 Cr.P.C. is for the grant of regular bail in case FIR No.152 dated 16.09.2021 under Sections 18, 21, 23 and 29 NDPS Act and Section 25 of the Arms Act, 1959 and Section 61 of the Punjab Excise Act, 1914 registered at Police Station Sadar Ferozepur, District Ferozepur.

2. The brief facts of the case are that while the police party was on patrolling duty, secret information was received that Sukhwinder Singh @ Sukha son of Gurmeet, Harmesh Singh son of Prem Singh, Jaswant Singh @ Chhinda Baba @ Shinda (petitioner), Amarjit Singh @ Bittu son of Natha Singh and Sukhdev Singh @ Sukha son of Ranjit Singh alongwith 5-6 unidentified persons were indulging in smuggling of opium, heroin and arms with Pakistan at the borders of Punjab and Rajasthan. Jasvir Singh @ Gaggu son of Phumman Singh and Chanu son of Hansa Singh were also active with these persons. If a raid was conducted, the recovery of drugs, arms and illicit liquor could be effected from the accused.

During the course of investigation, the co-accused of the petitioner, namely, Jasvir Singh @ Jassu and Sukhdev Singh @ Sukha were arrested and got recovered 8 kgs. And 500 grams of heroin. They disclosed the names of other persons including the petitioner.

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, namely, Jasvir Singh @ Jassu and Sukhdev Singh @ Sukha. Pursuant to his arrest, no recovery whatsoever had been effected. 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”, 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. As the petitioner was a first-time offender, in custody since 02.09.2022 and only 11 out of the 19 prosecution witnesses had been examined so far, he was entitled to the concession of bail.

4. The learned counsel for the respondent-State, on the other hand, contends that in view of the serious allegations levelled against the petitioner, he was not entitled to the grant of bail. He, however, admits that the petitioner is named in the disclosure statement of his co-accused and no recovery was effected from him. He also concedes that the petitioner was a first-time offender, in custody since 02.09.2022 and only 11 of the 19 prosecution witnesses have been examined so far.

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

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 of the disclosure statement of the main accused Dinesh Kumar. Therefore, reliance was placed by the High Cour