Aman vs State Of Haryana

Punjab-Haryana High Court

Aman vs State Of Haryana on 10 May, 2024

                                 Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:065579




       IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
                    AT CHANDIGARH

106                              CRM-M-23514-2024
                                 Date of Decision : May 10, 2024

AMAN                                                  -PETITIONER

                                         V/S

STATE OF HARYANA                                      -RESPONDENT

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KULDEEP TIWARI

Present:     Mr. Suram Singh Rana, Advocate
             for the petitioner.

             Mr. Bhupender Singh, D.A.G., Haryana.
                             ***

KULDEEP TIWARI, J. (ORAL)

1. Through the instant petition, as instituted under Section 438 of the Cr.P.C., the petitioner seeks the concession of anticipatory bail, in FIR No.108 dated 06.04.2024, under Section 20 of the N.D.P.S. Act, 1985, registered at P.S. Kunjpura, District Karnal.

2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has no concern whatsoever with the alleged recovery of 1 kg 38 grams Ganja Patti, which indeed has been effected from co-accused Paramjeet Kaur, and, which falls in the category of "non-commercial quantity". The name of the petitioner surfaced for the first time ever only in the disclosure statement, as suffered by the co-accused Paramjeet Kaur, whereupon, he has been arrayed as an accused in the instant FIR. He contests the evidentiary vigor of the said disclosure statement, on the ground that, the same was suffered by the co-accused (supra) while being in police custody.

1 of 3 ::: Downloaded on - 14-05-2024 02:31:18 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:065579 CRM-M-23514-2024 2

3. Although the petitioner has been nominated as an accused on the basis of disclosure statement and although the alleged recovery of Ganja Patti, as effected from the co-accused (supra), falls in the category of "non-commercial quantity", however, the record reveals that the petitioner is involved in two other criminal cases registered under the N.D.P.S Act. The petitioner has, upon his earning the relief of bail in those two criminal cases, instead of mending his ways, again indulged in trade of narcotics, by violating the conditions of bail granted to him.

4. Since it is a settled position of law that liberal approach in the matters related to the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances is uncalled for, therefore, when the hereinabove extracted criminal antecedents of the petitioner make him a habitual offender, who indulges in trade of narcotics time and again, this Court refrains from granting the asked for relief. Moreover, insofar as evidentiary worth of the disclosure statement of co-accused (supra) is concerned, the same can only be considered and ascertained at the appropriate stage of trial.

5. Consequently, this Court does not deem it a fit case to grant the extraordinary relief of anticipatory bail to the petitioner. To reach at this conclusion, this Court also garners strength from the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, in case titled as "The State of Haryana Versus Samarth Kumar", 2022 (3) RCR (Criminal) 991. In summa, the asked for relief of anticipatory bail is declined to the petitioner and the petition is accordingly dismissed.

2 of 3 ::: Downloaded on - 14-05-2024 02:31:18 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:065579 CRM-M-23514-2024 3

6. However, anything observed hereinabove shall neither be construed to have any bearing on the outcome of the trial, nor the trial Court concerned shall be influenced by any of the observations recorded herein.

                                              (KULDEEP TIWARI)
May 10, 2024                                      JUDGE
devinder
           Whether speaking/reasoned :               Yes/No
           Whether Reportable        :               Yes/No




                               3 of 3
            ::: Downloaded on - 14-05-2024 02:31:18 :::