Punjab-Haryana High Court
Ranjeet Singh vs State Of Haryana on 16 December, 2024
Author: Sandeep Moudgil
Bench: Sandeep Moudgil
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:172379
CRM-M-63022-2024 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
103
CRM-M-63022-2024
DATE OF DECISION: 16.12.2024
RANJEET SINGH
.....PETITIONER
Versus
STATE OF HARYANA
.....RESPONDENT
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP MOUDGIL
Present: Mr. Ramandeep Kaur, Advocate for
Mr. Monty Goyal, Advocate for the petitioner(s).
Mr. B.S. Virk, Sr. DAG, Punjab
*****
SANDEEP MOUDGIL, J
1. Relief Sought
The jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 BNSS, 2023, has
been invoked seeking anticipatory bail to the present petitioner in FIR No.
976, dated 23.11.2024, under Sections 21(b) of NDPS Act registered at Police
Station Sadar Hisar, District Hisar.
2. Facts
“To, Station House Officer, Police Station Sadar Hisar, Jai Hind.
Today on 23.11.2024, myself ASI Hemraj No. 1703/RTK, Haryana
State Narcotics Control Bureau Unit Hisar, along with his
colleagues ESI Balwant Singh No. 498/ Sirsa, EHC Bazir No.
874/Hansi in a Government Vehicle bearing No. HR 05GV 5957
brand Scorpio Driver HC Vikrant No. 218/Hisar for the prevention
of Narcotics Crime was present at Bagla Road, Hisar nea Piranwali
Mod, when a special informer met and informed that Mahender
Singh alias Bittu, son of Bajir Singh, resident of village Piranwali,
1 of 8
::: Downloaded on – 04-01-2025 00:58:43 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:172379
CRM-M-63022-2024 2
District Hisar, is standing outside his house with Heroin. If an
immediate raid is conducted, the above mentioned Mahender Singh
alias Bittu can be controlled along with the narcotics substance
Heroin. When the information was confirmed and reliable, myself
ASI informed my fellow co-officials about the information. The
information was sent to higher authorities as per rules by preparing
a report under section 42 NDPS Act and sent through EHC Bazir
No. 874/Hansi at Police Station Sadar Hisar for information. After
that, myself ASI along with fellow employees in a govt. vehicle left
for the place as told by the special informant and reached the house
of Mahender Singh alias Bittu. Then a boy wearing black lower and
green T-shirt was seen standing in the street outside a house. On
seeing the police party, he started entering the house, then myself
ASI controlled him with the help of fellow employees and asked his
name and address. He revealed his name as Mahender Singh alias
Bittu, son of Bazir Singh, resident of village Piranwali, district
Hisar. Thereafter, on the confirmed information of the presence of
narcotic substances in the possession of Mahender Singh alias
Bittu, myself ASI issued a notice under section 50 of the NDPS Act
and said that “I, ASI Hemraj No. 1703/RTK, am posted as an
investigating officer in the Haryana State Narcotics Control Bureau
Unit, Hisar. I have given complete introduction of myself and my
team to you Mahender Singh alias Bittu, son of Bajir Singh, resident
of village Piranwali, district Hisar. I have received information that
you have narcotic substances in your possession. You have the legal
right regarding search that if you want your search to be done in
the presence of a Gazetted Officer or the nearest Magistrate, then
they can be called on the spot or you can be presented before them.
The notice has been read out and explained to you. You should be
informed about the notice and tell your wish. Notice under Section
50 NDPS Act was prepared. Accused Mahender Singh alias Bittu
affixed his left hand thumb impression and the witnesses appended
their respective signatures. After that, the above mentioned accused
Mahender Singh alias Bittu, after thinking for some time, recorded
his reply in notice under Section 50 NDPS Act that “I Mahender
Singh alias Bittu son of Bajir Singh, resident of village Piranwali,
district Hisar. You ASI Hemraj No. 1703/RTK Haryana State
Narcotics Control Bureau Unit Hisar have shown me your police
ID card and given me complete introduction of yourself and your
team. I have understood the notice given by you under Section 50
NDPS Act very well. I want my search to be done on the spot in the
presence of a Gazetted Officer. You should call a Gazetted Officer
on the spot. I have scribed my reply notice to you. You have read
out the reply notice to me and explained it to me. The reply notice
under Section 50 NDPS Act was prepared. On which accused
2 of 8
::: Downloaded on – 04-01-2025 00:58:44 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:172379
CRM-M-63022-2024 3
Mahender Singh alias Bittu affixed his left hand thumb impression
and the witnesses appended their respective signatures. After that at
around 11:45 AM, as per the list of Gazetted Officers in relation to
NDPS issued by Deputy Commissioner Hisar, myself ASI contacted
Gazetted Officer Sh. Anshuman Thakral Excise and Taxation
Officer Office DETC (ST) Hisar on mobile number 9812600449
from my mobile number 8708046211 but he did not pick up the
phone. After that, when we contacted Mr. Rakesh Malik Tehsildar
Hisar on his mobile number 89013202203, we could not get be able
to connect. We tried to contact both of them many times but could
not get connect. Then at about 12:13 PM I contacted Gazetted
Officer Sh. Baru Singh, Excise and Taxation Officer, Office of
DETC (ST) Hisar on Mobile No. 9818736517 from my Mobile No.
8708046211 and informed him about the circumstances and
requested him to come to the spot, who told that he was reaching
the spot. After waiting, for about 12:55 PM Gazetted Officer Sh.
Baru Singh, Excise and Taxation Officer, Office of DETC (ST)
Hisar reached on the spot, to whom myself ASI informed him about
the circumstances and presented the notice and reply notice under
Section 50 of NDPS Act. Gazetted Officer Sh. Baru Singh ETO saw
the notice and reply notice under Section 50 of NDPS Act. Sh. Baru
Singh ETO interrogated the accused Mahender Singh alias Bittu.
Myself ASI handed over my mobile phone to HC Vikrant No.
218/Hisar and started videography at 01:06 PM. Myself ASI made
an offer to search me in front of Gazetted Officer Sh. Baru Singh
ETO. Who searched me himself. During the search, no narcotic
substance or illegal item was found from me, so a search offer and
personal recovery report was prepared. On memo, accused
Mahender Singh alias Bittu affixed his left hand thumb impression
and the witnesses appended their signature and the Gazetted Officer
Sh. Baru Singh ETO verified the memo of search offer. After that, in
his presence Sh. Baru Singh ETO instructed myself ASI to search
the above mentioned accused Mahender Singh alias Bittu as per the
rules. On which myself ASI first searched the above mentioned
accused Mahender Singh alias Bittu and then I found a transparent
polythene in the right pocket of the black coloured lower worn by
accused Mahender Singh alias Bittu. When the same was checked,
the narcotic substance heroin was recovered from it. And the
recovered heroin along with the transparent polythene was weighed
with the computer weighing scale, the total weight of the recovered
heroin along with the transparent waxy polythene was found to be
06.02 grams. The recovered heroin along with the waxy polythene
was put into a cloth parcel and a separate parcel was prepared.
Then myself ASI stamped the parcel of narcotic substance heroin
along with the sample seal with my copper smap embossed seal
3 of 8
::: Downloaded on – 04-01-2025 00:58:44 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:172379
CRM-M-63022-2024 4
initials HR/3. After that Gazetted Officer Sh. Baru Singh ETO
stamped the parcel of narcotic substance Heroin along with sample
seal with his silver ring raised seal initials SS/l and kept the seal
with himself after use. I handed over the seal and sample seal to ESI
Balwant Singh No. 498/Sirsa for later use. The parcel of narcotic
substance Heroin total weight 06.02 grams with sample seal HR/3,
ss/1 along with sample seal was taken into police custody as
evidence through property seizure memo. On the property seizure
memo, accused Mahender Singh alias Bittu affixed his left hand
thumb impression and witnesses appended their respective
signatures. Sh. Baru Singh ETO also verified the parcel of narcotic
substance Heroin, sample seal and property seizure memo. During
the entire proceedings, the general public was asked to join in the
proceedings. But all of them expressed their compulsion and left the
spot without disclosing their names and addresses. On
interrogation, accused Mahender Singh alias Bittu told that I had
bought the Heroin from Ranjeet alias Ranu son of Lalu Wali of
village Piranwali, district Hisar, Since the above mentioned
accused Mahender Singh alias Bittu has committed the crime under
section 21B-61-85 NDPS Act by keeping 06.02 stan of narcotic
substance Heroin in his illegal possession, for which a complaint is
being sent to Police Station Sadar Hisar through ESI Balwant Singh
No. 498/Sirsa. After registration of case, its case number should be
informed. For further investigation, another investigating officer
should be sent to the spot. Myself SI along with fellow employees,
with the above mentioned accused Mahender Singh alias Bittu
along with the case property is present at the spot.”
3. Contentions
On behalf of the petitioner
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has
been falsely implicated in the present case has been nominated as an accused,
only on the disclosure statement of the co-accused namely Mahender Singh
@Bittu from whom the alleged recovery of 6.02 gm of Heroin has been
affected. The Learned counsel also submits that the present petitioner has been
attributed no specific role and no recovery has been effected from the present
petitioner. There is no evidence with the prosecution to connect him with the
4 of 8
::: Downloaded on – 04-01-2025 00:58:44 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:172379
CRM-M-63022-2024 5
crime in question. Nothing is to be recovered from the petitioner, who is ready
and willing to join the investigation.
Notice of motion.
On behalf of the respondent/State
Mr. B.S. Virk, Sr. DAG, Haryana, appearing on advance notice,
accepts the same on behalf of respondent/State, who prays for dismissal of the
present petition stating that the name of the petitioner has been specifically
disclosed by the Co-accused Mahender Singh @ Bittu as the supplier.The
petitioner and his co-accused are accused of committing a crime which
cripples the society and also corrupts the sacred thread of society. Custodial
interrogation of the petitioner is required to ascertain the factual position of
the present case.
4. Analysis
In case of criminal investigation, the normal procedure prescribed
for curtailing the right to life & liberty, is that the investigating officer can
arrest the accused even without warrant. The Court has extraordinary power to
protect an innocent person. However, this power has to be exercised by the
Courts with due circumspection.
The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Sumitha Pradeep Vs.
Arun Kumar C.K. & Anr. 2022 Live Law (SC) 870 held that merely because
custodial interrogation was not required by itself could not be a ground to
grant anticipatory bail. The first and the foremost thing the Court hearing the
anticipatory bail application is to consider is the prima facie case against the
accused. The relevant extract of the judgment is reproduced here-in-below:-
5 of 8
::: Downloaded on – 04-01-2025 00:58:44 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:172379
CRM-M-63022-2024 6
“It may be true, as pointed out by learned counsel appearing for
Respondent No.1, that charge-sheet has already been filed. It will
be unfair to presume on our part that the Investigating Officer does
not require Respondent No.1 for custodial interrogation for the
purpose of further investigation.
Be that as it may, even assuming it a case where Respondent No.1 is
not required for custodial interrogation, we are satisfied that the
High Court ought not to have granted discretionary relief of
anticipatory bail.
We are dealing with a matter wherein the original complainant
(appellant herein) has come before this Court praying that the
anticipatory bail granted by the High Court to the accused should
be cancelled. To put it in other words, the complainant says that the
High Court wrongly exercised its discretion while granting
anticipatory bail to the accused in a very serious crime like POCSO
and, therefore, the order passed by the High Court granting
anticipatory bail to the accused should be quashed and set aside. In
many anticipatory bail matters, we have noticed one common
argument being canvassed that no custodial interrogation is
required and, therefore, anticipatory bail may be granted. There
appears to be a serious misconception of law that if no case for
custodial interrogation is made out by the prosecution, then that
alone would be a good ground to grant anticipatory bail. Custodial
interrogation can be one of the relevant aspects to be considered
along with other grounds while deciding an application seeking
anticipatory bail. There may be many cases in which the custodial
interrogation of the accused may not be required, but that does not
mean that the prima facie case against the accused should be
ignored or overlooked and he should be granted anticipatory bail.
The first and foremost thing that the court hearing an anticipatory
bail application should consider is the prima facie case put up
against the accused. Thereafter, the nature of the offence should be
looked into along with the severity of the punishment. Custodial
interrogation can be one of the grounds to decline custodial
interrogation. However, even if custodial interrogation is not
required or necessitated, by itself, cannot be a ground to grant
anticipatory bail.”
More so, investigation is still going on in the present case. It is
settled proposition of law that power exercisable under Section 438 Cr.P.C., is
somewhat extraordinary in character and it is to be exercised in exceptional
6 of 8
::: Downloaded on – 04-01-2025 00:58:44 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:172379
CRM-M-63022-2024 7
cases. The Supreme Court in “State vs. Anil Sharma“;(1997) 7 SCC 187, held
as under:-
“We find force in the submission of the CBI that custodial
interrogation is qualitatively more elicitation oriented than
questioning a suspect who is well ensconded with a favourable
order under Section 438 of the code. In a case like this effective
interrogation of a suspected person is of tremendous advantage in
disinterring many useful informations and also material which
would have been concealed. Success in such interrogation would
elude if the suspected person knows that he is well protected and
insulated by a pre-arrest bail order during the time he is
interrogated. Very often interrogation in such a condition would
reduce to a mere ritual. The argument that the custodial
interrogation is fraught with the danger of the person being
subjected to third-degree methods needs not be countenanced, for,
such an argument can be advanced by all accused in all criminal
cases. The Court has to presume that responsible police officers
would conduct themselves in a responsible manner and that those
entrusted with the task of disinterring offences would not conduct
themselves as offenders.”
5. Conclusion
In the instant case, the investigation has prima facie established that
the co-accused from whom the recovery of 6.02 gm of Heroin has been
effected has named the present petitioner to be the supplier of the alleged
contraband, therefore the custodial interrogation is required to ascertain the
allegations made against the petitioner. Even otherwise, the investigation is to
be taken to its logical conclusion for which the custodial interrogation of the
petitioner is certainly required. Therefore, the petitioner is not entitled to the
grant of anticipatory bail.
7 of 8
::: Downloaded on – 04-01-2025 00:58:44 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:172379
CRM-M-63022-2024 8
6. Decision
The present petition stands, dismissed in aforesaid terms.
However, it is made clear that the observations in this order are only
for the purposes of deciding this bail application and the trial Court is free to
adjudicate upon the matter in accordance with law.
(Sandeep Moudgil)
16.12.2024 Judge
Poonam Negii/anuradha
Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No
Whether Reportable Yes/No
8 of 8
::: Downloaded on - 04-01-2025 00:58:44 :::