IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH (307)

Date of decision: 27.02.2025 Ravinder Singh @ Ravi .... Petitioner V/s State of Punjab ...Respondent CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE JASJIT SINGH BEDI Present: Mr. P.K.S. Phoolka, Advocate, for the petitioner.

Mr. Rajinder Singh Bhatta, DAG, Punjab.

*****

JASJIT SINGH BEDI, J. (Oral)

The prayer in this petition under Section 483 of BNSS, 2023 is for the grant of regular bail to the petitioner in case FIR No.201 dated 27.11.2023 under Sections 21(b) of the Narcotic Drugs & Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (Section 29 of the NDPS Act was added later on vide DDR No.27 dated 30.11.2023) registered at Police Station Kotwali, Bathinda, Tehsil and District Bathinda (Punjab).

2. The brief facts of the case are that Manjeet Singh @ Babbu was apprehended with 257 grams of heroin. During the course of investigation, the petitioner came to be nominated as an accused under Section 29 of the NDPS Act on the basis of disclosure statement of his co-accused.

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 which has little evidentiary value. 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, State of Haryana versus Samarth Kumar 2022 (3) RCR (Criminal) 991 and 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. He contends that in the one other case registered against the petitioner vide FIR No.41/2024 dated 09.04.2024 under Sections 21B/61/85 of the NDPS Act, Police Station Kotwali, Bathinda, he was granted the concession of bail. As the petitioner was in custody since December, 2023 and only 01 of the 13 prosecution witnesses had been examined so far, the Trial of the present case was not likely to be concluded anytime soon. Therefore, he was entitled to the concession of bail in this case as well.

4. The learned counsel for the State, on the other hand, contends that the petitioner is a habitual offender with one other case registered against him vide FIR No.41/2024 dated 09.04.2024. He further contends that in view of the serious nature of allegations levelled against the petitioner, he was not entitled to the concession of bail. He, however, concedes that the petitioner was named in the disclosure statement of the arrested accused, is in custody since December 2023 and only 01 out of the

13 prosecution witnesses had been examined so far.

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 of the disclosure statement of 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 r