Punjab-Haryana High Court
Lakho vs State Of Punjab on 7 January, 2025
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:000632
CRM-M--44542-2024 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
201 CRM-M-44542-2024
.2025
Date of decision: 07.01.202
Lakho
....Petitioner
V/s
State of Punjab
....Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL
Present: Mr. J.K. Singla, Advocate and
Ms. Suman Rani, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. Neeraj Madaan, Senior DAG Punjab.
*****
SUMEET GOEL,
GOEL J. (Oral)
The instant petition has been filed on 04.09.2024 under Section
438 of Cr.P.C., 1973 for grant of anticipatory bail.
As per the judgment rendered by this Court titled as ‘Abhishek
Jain Vs. State of U.T. Chandigarh and another (CRM
(CRM-M-31808
31808-
2024:2024:PHHC:085784), the instant petition is not maintainable under
Section 438 of Cr.P.C., 1973. However, keeping in view the entirety of facts
and circumstances of the case especially
especially that the instant petition pertains to
anticipatory bail, the instant petition is directed to be considered as a petition
under Section 482 of BNSS, 2023.
1. Present petition has been filed for grant of anticipatory bail to
the petitioner in case FIR No.18
No dated 20.01.2023 under Sections 22, 29 of
the NDPS Act registered at Police Station City-2, Mansa, District Mansa..
1 of 8
::: Downloaded on – 09-01-2025 01:23:02 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:000632
CRM-M–44542-2024 2
2. The case set up in the FIR in question (as set out in the present
petition by the petitioner) is as follows:-
follows:
“Copy of ruqa, SHO Sahib,
hib, Police Station City
City-2
2 Mansa, Jai Hind, Today,
I, ASI along with ASI Sukhmander Singh 716/Mansa, HC Manpreet Singh
959/Mansa, SCT Lakhbir Singh 994/Mansa, SCT Tirath Singh
1298/Mansa were travelling on private vehicle driven by me/ASI along
with electronic
onic kit departed in the area of Police Station for checking of
suspected persons. While checking, Police party was going from
Chakerian Phatak Mansa towards Gandhi School Mansa adjoining to
Railway Line and when the police party reached near turn of water works
tanker constructed near Gandhi School and at main gate of ground of
Khalsa School then one person while sitting with wall of Gandhi School
and searching something in plastic sack then I, ASI stopped the vehicle on
the basis of suspicion and come out from vehicle along with colleagues
and walked towards person sitting adjoining with wall who got perplexed
after seeing the police party and suddenly stand up and hide the plastic
sack of white colour in his right hand and tried to escape in the ground of
Khalsa School and I, ASI got apprehended him with the help of colleagues
and asked his name and address then who told his name as Amritpal Singh
alias Bablu Son of Sadhu Ram, resident of Ward No.5, Street in front of
Mata Sandari College, Mansa and whose identification is as under: Aged
about 50 years, height 5′-7″,
7”, fair complexion, cleave shave and hair
hair–cut,
mark of injury on left knee, healthy. Thereafter, I, ASI was tried to join any
independent witness but no private witness was joined. Thereafter, I, ASI
told to apprehended person Amritpal alias Bablu that I, ASI Kaur Singh
127/MNS posted as I.O. at Police Station City 2 Mansa and I am in
uniform as per my rank and name plate is affixed. Want to check you and
plastic sack of white colour in your posses
possession
sion but you have legal right
that you can check yourself and plastic sack of white colour in your
possession from any Gazetted Officer or Magistrate Sahib or either bring
you along with plastic sack of white colour in your possession before
them. Notice under
nder Section 50 of NDPS Act has been issued to him and
who put his signatures in Punjabi on notice and ASI Sukhmander Singh
716/Mansa and HC Manpreet Singh 959/Mansa put their testimony.
Thereafter, accused Amritpal alias Bablu stated while agreeing that I want
to check myself and plastic sack of white colour in my possession from you
on the spot. I have full faith upon you. Upon this, information memo, legal2 of 8
::: Downloaded on – 09-01-2025 01:23:03 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:000632CRM-M–44542-2024 3
right memo and consent memo was prepared and accused Amritpal Singh
alias Bablu put his signatures in Punjabi on it and ASI Sukhmander Singh
716/Mansa and HC Manpreet Singh 959/Mansa put their testimony.
Thereafter, I, ASI checked the plastic sack of white colour from the
possession of accused Amritpal Singh alias Bablu by opening it in the
presence of witnesses and out of which Tramadol Prolonged
Prolonged-Release
Release
Tablets IP TRAMWEL SR 100 intoxicant tablets were recovered.
Recovered intoxicant tablets were counted and upon counting 10 Strips,
each strip containing 10 Tablets i.e. total 100 intoxicant tablets Batch
Bat
Number was rubbed and Manufactured by Pure & Cure Healthcare
Private Limited, Plot No.26A, 27
27-30, Sector 8-A,
A, I.I.E. SIDCUL
RANIPUR, Haridwar-249403
249403 (Uttrakhand). Thereafter, I, ASI kept the
recovered 100 intoxicant tablets into same plastic sack of whi
white
te colour and
sack was kept into cloth bag and prepared the bundle. Bundle of intoxicant
tablets was duly stamped by me/ASI with his stamp word K.S. Sample
stamp was prepared separately. After use, handed over to ASI
Sukhmander Singh 716/Mansa. Thereafter, I, ASI were taken the bundle of
intoxicant tablets along with Sample stamps into police possession vide
separate recovery memo. Witnesses put their testimony. Thereafter, I, ASI
conducted the personal search of Amritpal Singh alias Bablu as per
procedure and neither any cash nor any valuable thing has been
recovered from him and upon this, personal search memo was prepared
and above sald Amritpal Singh alias Bablu put his signatures in Punjabi
and witnesses put their testimony. Accused Amritpal Singh alias Bablu
failed to produce any license or permit etc. for keeping intoxicant tablets
in his possession. Accused Amritpal Singh alias Bablu committed the
offence under Section 22/61/85 of NDPS Act by keeping intoxicant tablets
in his possession. Therefore, ruqa
qa against Amritpal Singh alias Bablu has
been prepared under the above said Section and sent to Police Station for
registration of case through SCT Tirath Singh 1298/Mansa. Case number
be intimated after registration of case. PCR Mansa informed through
W/M.
M. Special reports be issued. I, ASI along with colleagues present on
the spot for investigation. Sd/- Kaur Singh ASI, Police Station City 2
Mansa. Dated 20.01.2023″
3. On 09.09.2024, the following order was passed:
“Petitioner
Petitioner Lakho has filed petition under Section 438 Cr.P.C. for
grant of anticipatory bail in FIR No. 18 dated 20.01.2023 under Section3 of 8
::: Downloaded on – 09-01-2025 01:23:03 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:000632CRM-M–44542-2024 4
22, 29 of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (Act No.
61 of 1985), registered at Police Station City
City-2
2 Mansa, District Mansa
(Annexure P-1).
Learned counsel
nsel for petitioner pointed out that present petitioner is
named by co-accused
accused Amritpal Singh alias Bablu from whose possession
allegedly 100 intoxicant tablets of TRAMWEL SR 100 was recovered.
Present petitioner is ready to join the investigation.
Notice of motion.
On asking of this Court, Mr. Kewal Singh, Addl. A.G. Punjab
accepts notice on behalf of State and prays for an adjournment to file
status report.
Considering the fact that present petitioner is named by co-
co
accused and the fact that petitioner
oner is ready to join the investigation,
arrest of petitioner Lakho is stayed till next date of hearing, subject to
joining of investigation.
Adjourned to 07.11.2024, for filing status report.
report.”
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the petitioner
has been falsely implicated into the FIR in question. Learned counsel has
further argued that there is no link or connection between the petitioner and
the co-accused
accused (from whom the contraband is alleged to have been
recovered) and the petitioner
petitioner is sought to be implicated only on the basis of
disclosure statement of the co-accused
co accused from whom the contraband is alleged
to have been recovered. Learned counsel has further submitted that
petitioner has joined the investigation and has cooperated ther
therein.
ein. On the
strength of these arguments, learned counsel has sought for grant of
anticipatory bail to the petitioner.
5. Learned State counsel has filed a status report by way of
affidavit of Butta Singh, Deputy Superintendent of Police, Sub
Sub-Division
Division
Mansa,
nsa, District Mansa in Court today,
today which is taken on record. A copy
4 of 8
::: Downloaded on – 09-01-2025 01:23:03 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:000632
CRM-M–44542-2024 5
thereof has been furnished to learned counsel for the petitioner. Paragraph 3
(vi) of the above-said
above said status report reads as under:
under:-
“(vi) That on 11.09.2024, in compliance of the orde
orderr dated 09.09.2024,
petitioner Lakho Kaur had joined the investigation with the IO. After
formally arresting the petitioner Lakho Kaur, she was enlarged on bail by
the IO, on furnishing of personal bonds by her. However, in order to
ascertain the modus operandi,
randi, other persons involved in the drug
trafficking and for shattering the drug nexus, custodial interrogation of the
petitioner is required to the IO. In case Petitioner is granted with the
concession of anticipatory bail there are chances of absconding of the
petitioner from the trial of the case and re
re-engaging
engaging in the like offences. In
these circumstances, Petitioner does not deserve the relief of concession of
anticipatory bail or any other alternative relief from this Hon’ble Court.”
Learned State counsel has raised submissions in tandem with
the status report and has sought for rejection of the petition in hand.
6. I have heard learned counsel for the rival parties and have
perused the available record.
7. At this juncture, it would
uld be apposite to refer herein to a
judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court titled as Tofan Singh vs.
State of Tamil Nadu, AIR 2020 Supreme Court 5592
5592,, relevant whereof
reads as under:
“155. We answer the reference by stating:
(i) That the officers who are invested with powers under section
53 of the NDPS Act are “police officers” within the meaning
of section 25 of the Evidence Act, as a rresult
esult of which any
confessional statement made to them would be barred under the
provisions of section 25 of the Evidence Act, and cannot be taken
into account in order to convict an accused under the NDPS Act.
Act
(ii) That a statement recorded under section 67 of the NDPS Act
cannot be used as a confessional statement in the trial of an
offence under the NDPS Act
Act.”
5 of 8
::: Downloaded on – 09-01-2025 01:23:03 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:000632
CRM-M–44542-2024 6
7.1. Further, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in a judgment tilted as
State by (NCB) Bengaluru vs. Pallulabid Ahmad Arimutta & Anr. 2022(1)
RCR (Criminal) 762, has held as under:-
“9. Having gone through the records alongwith the tabulated
statement of the respondents submitted on behalf of the petitioner
petitioner-NCB
NCB
and on carefully perusing the impugned orders passed in each case, it
emerges that except for the voluntary statements of A
A-1 and A-2 in the first
case and that of the respondents themselves recorded under Section 67 of
the NDPS Act, it appears, prima facie, that no substantial material was
available with the prosecution at the time of arrest to connect the
respondents with the allegations leve
levelled
lled against them of indulging in drug
trafficking. It has not been denied by the prosecution that except for the
respondent in SLP (Crl.) No. 1569/2021, none of the other respondents
were found to be in possession of commercial quantities of psychotropic
substances, as contemplated under the NDPS Act.
10. It has been held in clear terms in Tofan Singh Vs. State of Tamil
Nadu, (2021) 4 SCC 1,, that a confessional statement recorded under
Section 67 of the NDPS Act will remain inadmissible in the trial of an
a
offence under the NDPS Act. In the teeth of the aforesaid decision, the
arrests made by the petitioner
petitioner-NCB,
NCB, on the basis of the
confession/voluntary statements of the respondents or the co
co-accused
accused
under Section 67 of the NDPS Act, cannot form the basis ffor
or overturning
the impugned orders releasing them on bail. The CDR details of some of
the accused or the allegations of tampering of evidence on the part of one
of the respondents is an aspect that will be examined at the stage of trial.
For the aforesaid reason, this Court is not inclined to interfere in the
orders dated 16th September, 2019, 14th January, 2020, 16th January,
2020, 19th December, 2019 and 20th January, 2020 passed in SLP (Crl.)
No@ Diary No. 22702/2020, SLP (Crl.) No. 1454/2021, SLP (Crl.) No.
1465/2021, SLP (Crl.) No. 1773–74/2021
74/2021 and SLP (Crl.) No. 2080/2021
respectively. The impugned orders are, accordingly, upheld and the
Special Leave Petitions filed by the petitioner
petitioner-NCB
NCB seeking cancellation of
bail granted to the respective responden
respondents, are dismissed as meritless.”
”
6 of 8
::: Downloaded on – 09-01-2025 01:23:03 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:000632
CRM-M–44542-2024 7
7.2. Still further, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in a judgment titled as
Vijay Singh vs. The State of Haryana, bearing Special Leave to Appeal
(Crl.) No.(s)1266/2023 decided on 17.05.2023, has 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
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
co-accused.
accused. The
petitioner concededly
dedly was not present at the spot but was named by the
co-accused.
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 term
termss and conditions as
the trial Court may impose.
The petition is allowed.
All pending applications are disposed of.
of.”
8. The petitioner is sought to be arraigned as an accused in the FIR
in question, solely,, on the basis of disclosure statement made by co
co-accused
accused
from whom there is recovery of contraband. As per the prosecution versiion,
there is no
n other material available too connect the petitioner with the
contraban
nd in question. It is not in dispute that the petitioner was not present
at the spot.
ot. The veracity and weightage required to be attached to the
disclosure statement made by the co-accused
co accused will be fully tested at the time
of trial. However, the same cannot be construed as sufficient by itself to
decline the concession of anticipatory bail
bail to the petitioner especially when
the petitioner has joined the investigation in terms of the interim protection
earlier afforded by this Court and has cooperated therein except for giving
out the details of the modus operandi of the drug trafficking to
o the
7 of 8
::: Downloaded on – 09-01-2025 01:23:03 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:000632
CRM-M–44542-2024 8
satisfaction of the Police. It is trite law that a plea for anticipatory bail
cannot be rejected in case the petitioner is not cooperating to the satisfaction
of the Police until and unless cogent material is shown that the petitioner is
misusing the
the concession of interim anticipatory bail
bail. Furthermore, the
petitioner is a lady aged about 34 years and has clean antecedents.
9. In view of the above, the interim order dated 09.09.2024 passed
by this Court is made absolute, subject to the condition
conditionss as enumerated
under Section 482(2)
48 of BNSS, 2023.
10. This order should not be treated as “blanket” order. It will not
be read granting petitioner indefinite protection from arrest. It shall be
confined to the FIR mentioned ibid and will not operate iin
n respect of any
other incident that involves commission of an offence.
11. Liberty is reserved in favour of State to move for
cancellation/recall of this order in case the petitioner violates any condition
stipulated under Section 482(2)
48 of BNSS, 2023 or upon showing any other
sufficient cause.
12. Needless to say that anything observed herein above shall not
be construed to be an opinion on the merits of the case.
(SUMEET GOEL)
JUDGE
January 07,
07 2025
Ajay
Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No
Whether reportable: Yes/No
8 of 8
::: Downloaded on – 09-01-2025 01:23:03 :::