Punjab-Haryana High Court
Bhajan Singh vs State Of Punjab on 20 January, 2025
Author: Jasjit Singh Bedi
Bench: Jasjit Singh Bedi
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:007635
CRM-M-54125-2024 ::1::
(220) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
CRM-M-54125-2024
Date of Decision: 20.01.2025
BHAJAN SINGH
... Petitioner
Versus
STATE OF PUNJAB
...Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASJIT SINGH BEDI
Present: Mr. B.S. Bhalla, Advocate
for the petitioner.
Mr. Harkanwar Jeet Singh, Asstt. A.G., Punjab.
****
JASJIT SINGH BEDI, J.
The prayer in the present petition under Section 483 BNSS, 2023
is for the grant of regular bail in case bearing FIR No.67 dated 20.06.2024
registered under Section 22 of NDPS Act (Section 29 of NDPS Act added
later on) at Police Station Bhindi Saidan, District Amritsar.
2. The brief facts of the case are that one Gurjant Singh was
apprehended with 800 intoxicant tablets. He suffered his disclosure statement
naming the present 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,
Gurjant Singh. 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
1 of 10
::: Downloaded on – 21-01-2025 05:42:02 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:007635
CRM-M-54125-2024 ::2::
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. As the petitioner was in custody since 28.08.2024 and
none of the 13 prosecution witnesses had been examined so far, he was
entitled to the concession of bail, even though, there were two other cases
bearing pending against him.
4. On the other hand, the learned State counsel contends that the
petitioner was a habitual offender. He was an accused in two other cases
arising out of FIR No.234 dated 17.09.2021 U/s 22/61/85 NDPS Act, P.S.
Lopoke and FIR No.64/2024 dated 16.06.2024 U/s 22/29/61/85 NDPS Act,
P.S. Bhindi Saidan. He, however, admits that the petitioner was named in the
disclosure statement of his co-accused and no recovery was effected from
him. He also concedes that the petitioner was in custody since 28.08.2024 and
none of the 13 prosecution witnesses had been examined so far.
2 of 10
::: Downloaded on - 21-01-2025 05:42:02 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:007635
CRM-M-54125-2024 ::3::
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 2022 (3) RCR (Criminal) 991, 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 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 High
Court. Therefore, the same cannot be a ground to hold that
the present appeals have become infructuous.
8. In cases of this nature, the respondents may be able to take
advantage of the decision in Tofan Singh v. State of Tamil3 of 10
::: Downloaded on – 21-01-2025 05:42:02 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:007635CRM-M-54125-2024 ::4::
Nadu (supra), perhaps at the time of arguing the regular bail
application or at the time of final hearing after conclusion of
the trial.
9. To grant anticipatory bail in a case of this nature is not
really warranted. Therefore, we are of the view that the High
Court fell into an error in granting anticipatory bail to the
respondents.
10. In view of the above, the appeals are allowed. The
impugned orders are set-aside. As a consequence, the
Appellant-State is entitled to take steps, in accordance with
law.
[emphasis supplied]
7. In Vijay Singh Versus The State of Haryana, bearing Special
Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No.(s).1266/2023 decided on 17.05.2023, it was held
as under:-
“The petitioner is alleged to have committed offences under
Sections 15 and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic
Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter called the NDPS Act“. His
application for anticipatory bail was rejected by the High
Court. The allegations in the FIR are that 1.7 Kg of Poppy
Straw (Doda Post) was recovered from the co-accused. The
petitioner concededly was not present at the spot but was
named by the co-accused. That apart there is no other
material to implicate the petitioner. The prosecution urges that
another case with allegations of commission of offence under
the NDPS Act are pending against the petitioner. It is not
denied that in those proceedings he was granted bail.
Having regard to these circumstances, the petitioner
is directed to the enlarged on anticipatory bail, subject to such
terms and conditions as the trial Court may impose.
The petition is allowed.
All pending applications are disposed of.”
4 of 10
::: Downloaded on – 21-01-2025 05:42:02 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:007635
CRM-M-54125-2024 ::5::
(emphasis supplied)
8. This Court in the case of Vikrant Singh Versus State of Punjab,
CRM-M-39657-2020, held as under:-
“It is not in dispute that the petitioners have not been named
in the FIR. No recovery has been effected from the petitioners
and the alleged recovery has been effected from two co-
accused Rakesh Sharma and Ravdeep Singh alias Sheru. The
petitioners are sought to be implicated solely on the basis of
the disclosure statement made by the co-accused Rakesh
Sharma and Ravdeep Singh @ Sheru and even after the
petitioners were arrayed as accused in pursuance of the
disclosure statements, no recovery had been made from the
petitioners.
The petitioners have been in custody since 06.11.2020
(Vikrant Singh), 05.12.2020 (Subash Chander) and
23.04.2021 (Davinder Singh) and challan in the present case
has already been presented and there are 32 witnesses, out of
whom only one has been examined and thus, the trial is likely
to take time on account of Covid-19 Pandemic. The
petitioners are not involved in any other case. With respect to
the call details, suffice to say that no dates on which the said
calls had been allegedly made by the coaccused, Rakesh
Sharma and Ravdeep Singh alias Sheru to the petitioners or
vice-versa have been mentioned in the affidavit or in the
report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. Moreover, even the
transcript of the said conversations are not a part of the
record under Section 173 Cr.P.C. A Division Bench of this
Court in Narcotics Control Bureau’s case (supra), was
pleased to observe as under:-
Still further, no conversation detail between accused
Ramesh Kumar Patil and accused Sandeep has been
produced by the prosecution. Mere call details is not
5 of 10
::: Downloaded on – 21-01-2025 05:42:02 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:007635
CRM-M-54125-2024 ::6::
sufficient to prove that Sandeep accused was also
involved in the business of narcotic drugs or he had any
connected with Ramesh Kumar Patil.
In view of the above, no case is made out for grant of
leave to appeal against the acquittal of Sandeep
accused.”
In judgment of the Gujarat High Court in Yash Jayeshbhai
Champaklal Shah’s case (supra), it has been observed as
under:-
“Having heard learned advocates for the appearing
parties, it emerges on record that the applicant is not
found in possession of any contraband article. Over and
above that, the call data records may reveal that in an
around the time of incident, he was in contact with the
co-accused who were found in possession of contraband.
Since there is no recording of conversation in between
the accused, mere contacts with the co-accused who
were found in possession cannot be treated to be a
corroborative material in absence of substantive
material found against the accused.”
A perusal of the above judgment would show that
without the transcript of the conversations exchanged
between the co-accused, mere call details would not be
considered to be corroborative material in absence of
substantive material found against the accused. In the
present case, there is no other material against the
petitioners.
Keeping in view the above-said facts and circumstances, as
well as law laid down in the judgments noticed hereinabove,
the present petitions are allowed and the petitioners are
ordered to be released on bail on their furnishing bail/surety
bonds to the satisfaction of the concerned trial Court/Duty
6 of 10
::: Downloaded on – 21-01-2025 05:42:02 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:007635
CRM-M-54125-2024 ::7::
Magistrate and subject to their not being required in any
other case.
(emphasis supplied)
9. This Court in the case of Ranjit Singh Versus State of Punjab,
CRM-M-25526-2023, decided on 17.07.2023, held as under:-
“8. Coming back to the facts of the present case, it is pertinent
to note here that other than the instant FIR in which the
petitioner has been nominated as an accused on the basis of
the disclosure statement of the arrested accused, the petitioner
is also an accused in two other cases under the NDPS Act. In
addition, he had been an accused in three other cases, though
he has been acquitted in the said cases. It is highly unlikely
that the petitioner would have been implicated in multiple FIRs
at the whims and fancies of the Investigating Agency.
9. When there are multiple FIRs against a person over a
significant period of time (in this case 18 years), then even
though he may have been acquitted in some of those cases, the
twin conditions as envisaged under Section 37 of the NDPS Act
that he has not committed an offence and was not likely to
commit an offence cannot be satisfied.
10. Keeping in view the conduct of the petitioner and his
criminal antecedents, his custodial interrogation would
certainly be necessary to effect necessary recoveries and to
take the investigation to its logical conclusion.
11. In view of the above, I find no merit in the present petition.
Therefore, the same stands dismissed.
(emphasized supplied)
10. This Court in Soni Singh @ Chamkaur Sahib, CRM-M-31645-
2022, decided on 20.10.2022, held as under:-
“The Counsel for the petitioner contends that the
petitioner is not named in the FIR nor in the secret
7 of 10
::: Downloaded on – 21-01-2025 05:42:02 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:007635
CRM-M-54125-2024 ::8::
information. He has been named only in the disclosure
statement of his co-accused which is inadmissible in
evidence and even otherwise since the recovery effected from
him of 3 Kgs of Poppy Husk is of non commercial quantity,
therefore the rigors of Section 37 of NDPS Act did not apply
to the petitioner. Since the petitioner was in custody since
26.05.2022 and the trial was not likely to be concluded in the
near future, he deserved the concession of bail.
The Counsel for the State on the other hand contends
that the petitioner is a trafficker along with his co-accused.
As per the disclosure statement 200 Kgs of Poppy Husk was
to be supplied to the petitioner. Further he is involved in two
other cases under the NDPS Act as also one case under the
Excise Act and, therefore, did not deserve the concession of
bail in view of his antecedents.
I have heard counsel for both the sides at length.
Admittedly, the petitioner in the present case is named
in the disclosure statement of the arrested accused.
Subsequently thereto 3Kgs of Poppy Husk was recovered at
his instance which is a non commercial quantity. It may be
relevant to mention here that limitations to the grant of bail
under Section 37 of the NDPS Act are in addition to those
prescribed under Cr.PC or any other law inforce on the grant
of bail as has been set out by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in
Satpal Singh Vs. State of Punjab 2018(5) RCR (Criminal)
152. In the present case, the petitioner is involved in two
other cases under the NDPS Act. Thus, as he is a habitual
offender, he is not entitled to the grant of bail even under
Section 439 Cr.PC keeping in view his antecedents. Even
otherwise, assuming that the rigors of Section 37 of the
NDPS Act did not apply to the petitioner, that by itself would
not ipso facto lead to the grant of bail to the petitioner.
8 of 10
::: Downloaded on - 21-01-2025 05:42:02 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:007635
CRM-M-54125-2024 ::9::
In view of the above discussion, I find no merit in the
present petition and the same is therefore dismissed.
(emphasis supplied)
11. In Samarth Kumar (supra) the Hon’ble Supreme Court had clearly
held that an accused who had been named in the disclosure statement of a co-
accused was not entitled to the grant of anticipatory bail but could be granted
regular bail. However, in Vijay Singh (supra) a somewhat contrary view was
taken and the accused therein was granted the concession of anticipatory bail
even though he had been an accused in another case under the NDPS Act in
which he was on bail. In Vikrant Singh (supra) this Court held that where an
accused had been named in the disclosure statement of his co-accused and there
were CDRs/WhatsApp calls/chats between the arrested accused and the person
named in a disclosure statement then in the absence of the contents of the
conversation/chats bail could not be denied to the said accused. In Ranjit Singh
(supra) and Soni Singh @ Chamkaur Sahib (supra) it has been held by this
Court that where there were multiple FIRs against an accused over a period of
time then, even though he had been named in a disclosure statement, he was not
entitled to the concession of bail.
12. Coming back to the facts and circumstances of the present case,
other than the instant FIR in which the petitioner has been nominated as an
accused on the basis of the disclosure statement of his co-accused, the petitioner
is also an accused in two other cases under the NDPS Act which were registered
prior to the registration of the instant FIR. It is highly unlikely that the petitioner
would have been implicated in multiple FIRs at the whims and fancies of the
investigating agency.
9 of 10
::: Downloaded on - 21-01-2025 05:42:02 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:007635
CRM-M-54125-2024 ::10::
13. In fact, when there are multiple FIRs against an accused over a
significant period of time, then the twin conditions as envisaged under
Section 37 of the NDPS Act that he had not committed an offence and was
not likely to commit an offence cannot be satisfied. Further, the limitation to
the grant of bail under Section 37 of the NDPS Act are in addition to those
prescribed under the Cr.P.C. or any other law in force on the grant of bail.
Thus, a habitual offender is not entitled to the grant of bail even under the
provisions of the Cr.P.C. keeping in view his criminal antecedents even
though, his co-accused who are similarly situated may have been granted the
said concession.
14. In view of the above, I find no merit in the present petition.
Therefore, the same stands dismissed.
15. However, the Trial Court is directed to conclude the Trial as
expeditiously as possible but in any case not later than 06 months from the
next date of hearing fixed before it.
(JASJIT SINGH BEDI)
JUDGE
20.01.2025
JITESH Whether speaking/reasoned:- Yes/No
Whether reportable:- Yes/No
10 of 10
::: Downloaded on - 21-01-2025 05:42:02 :::
[ad_1]
Source link