Advocates:
MONIKA GUSAIN

1

ITEM NO.29 COURT NO.17 SECTION II-B

S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A

RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No(s). 3483/2023

(Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 19-01-2023

in CRMM No. 34955/2021 passed by the High Court Of Punjab & Haryana

At Chandigarh)

THE STATE OF HARYANA Petitioner(s)

VERSUS

JAIDITYA AHIR Respondent(s)

(IA No. 54746/2023 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED

JUDGMENT

IA No. 145925/2023 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T.

IA No. 54747/2023 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T.

IA No. 137920/2023 - PERMISSION TO FILE ADDITIONAL

DOCUMENTS/FACTS/ANNEXURES

IA No. 56682/2023 - PERMISSION TO FILE ADDITIONAL

DOCUMENTS/FACTS/ANNEXURES)

Date : 12-09-2023 This matter was called on for hearing today.

CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M. SUNDRESH

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRASHANT KUMAR MISHRA

For Petitioner(s) Mr. Anil Kaushik, A.A.G.

Mr. Rajat Rana, Adv.

Ms. Anju Kaushik, Adv.

Dr. Monika Gusain, AOR

For Respondent(s) Mr. Rishabh Sancheti, Adv.

Ms. Padma Priya, Adv.

Mr. Anchit Bhandari, Adv.

Mr. Suyash Jain, Adv.

Mr. Chirag Kalani, Adv.

Mr. Karan Bhootra, Adv.

Mr. K. Paari Vendhan, AOR

UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following

O R D E R

The special leave petition has been filed against the impugned

judgment and order dated 19.01.2023 passed by the High Court of

Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in CRM-M-34955-2021, by which the

Digitally signed by

Neetu Khajuria

Date: 2023.09.13

16:56:39 IST

Reason:

Signature Not Verified

2

respondent-herein was granted anticipatory bail, despite the fact

that the contraband recovered to be hit by Section 37 of the

Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985.

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner-State submits

that upon due consideration made on the co-accused, 1.5 kg of opium

and 199 kgs of khas khas alongwith 248 kgs of poppy husk were

recovered. Based upon the statement made by the co-accused, the

respondent was made as an accused. However, by the impugned order,

the High Court granted anticipatory bail by wrongly placing

reliance upon the decision of this Court in the case of Tofan Singh

vs. State of Tamil Nadu (Criminal Appeal No. 152 of 2013). In such

view of the matter, the order requires interference.

Learned counsel appearing for the respondent submitted that

the respondent has cooperated the investigation and in pursuant to

which, the chargesheet has also been filed. He has been impleaded

only by the statement of the co-accused. He also draw out attention

to the chargesheet filed.

Admittedly, the recovery was with respect to the commercial

quantity. We are of the view that the impugned order of the High

Court has made wrong reliance upon the judgment rendered in Tofan

Singh (supra) case. The anticipatory bail was granted at the

investigation stage.

In that view of the matter, we are inclined to set aside the

impugned order. Accordingly, the anticipatory bail granted in

favour of the respondent stands cancelled. However, the respondent

is granted eight weeks’ time to surrender from today.

3

The special leave petition is, accordingly, disposed of.

This order will not stand in the way of the respondent to file

appropriate application seeking grant of bail.

Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of.

(POOJA SHARMA) (RAM SUBHAG SINGH)

COURT MASTER (SH) COURT MASTER (NSH)