Ajay Kumar vs State Of Haryana

Citation : 2024 Latest Caselaw 20265 P&H
Judgement Date : 14 November, 2024

Punjab-Haryana High Court

Ajay Kumar vs State Of Haryana on 14 November, 2024

                                 Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:148922




       IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
                    AT CHANDIGARH

105                              CRM-M-56593-2024
                                 Date of Decision : November 14, 2024

AJAY KUMAR                                            -PETITIONER

                                         V/S

STATE OF HARYANA                                      -RESPONDENT

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KULDEEP TIWARI

Present:     Mr. D.S. Virk, Advocate
             for the petitioner.

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

                                ***

KULDEEP TIWARI, J. (ORAL)

1. Through the instant petition, as instituted under Section 482 of the B.N.S.S., the petitioner seeks the concession of anticipatory bail, in FIR No.669 dated 23.09.2024, under Section(s) 21(b)/61/85 of the N.D.P.S. Act, 1985, registered at P.S. Rania, District Sirsa.

2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, the petitioner has no concern whatsoever with the alleged recovery of 102 grams of Heroin, which has been effected from co-accused Gurtej Singh @ Teja. Moreover, when the allegedly recovered Heroin falls in the category of "non-commercial quantity", therefore, the statutory bar as engrafted in Section 37 of the N.D.P.S. Act, 1985, is not applicable in the present case. The name of the petitioner surfaced for the first time ever only in the disclosure statement, as suffered by his co-accused (supra), whereupon, he has been arrayed as an accused in the instant FIR. He contests the evidentiary vigor of the said disclosure statement, on the 1 of 3 ::: Downloaded on - 17-11-2024 14:36:38 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:148922 CRM-M-56593-2024 2 ground that, the same was suffered by the co-accused (supra) while being in police custody.

3. It would be apt to record here that, although the instant petition voices the petitioner to be involved in two more cases registered under the N.D.P.S. Act, however, the learned State counsel, on instructions from the official/officer concerned, informs this Court that the petitioner is involved in four more cases registered under the N.D.P.S. Act.

4. Although the petitioner has been nominated as an accused on the basis of disclosure statement and although the alleged recovery of Heroin, as effected from petitioner's co-accused (supra), falls in the category of "non-commercial quantity", however, considering the fact that:- (i) the petitioner has, consequent upon his earning the relief of bail in other criminal cases of similar nature, instead of mending his ways, again indulged in trade of narcotics, by violating the conditions of bail granted to him; (ii) 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, 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. It would also be pertinent to record here that, petitioner's co- accused Kulwinder Singh had also approached this Court, through filing CRM-M-52290-2024, thereby seeking a relief alike to the one craved by 2 of 3 ::: Downloaded on - 17-11-2024 14:36:39 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:148922 CRM-M-56593-2024 3 the petitioner, however, the said relief was declined to him by this Court, vide order dated 21.10.2024.

6. 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.

7. 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)
November 14, 2024                                  JUDGE
devinder
          Whether speaking/reasoned :                 Yes/No
          Whether Reportable        :                 Yes/No




                                3 of 3
             ::: Downloaded on - 17-11-2024 14:36:39 :::