The Punjab and Haryana High Court refused to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner and observed that the custodial interrogation of the petitioner was necessary considering the commercial quantity of recovery.
Brief Facts:
The police recovered 500 grams of heroin underneath the heap of paddy straw during the raid near the house of the petitioner after the police acted on a piece of secret information that was imparted to them.
Contentions of the Applicant:
The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the husband and son of the petitioner have already been arrested and the name of the petitioner is mentioned as something else in the FIR and the petitioner was neither present in her house nor around her house or in the plot where recovery has been affected and the recovery, thus cannot be considered in conscious possession of the petitioner. It was further argued that the mandatory provision of Section 42 of NDPA was also not followed in the case.
Contentions of the Respondent:
The learned counsel appearing for the state argued that recovery in the given case was of commercial quantity and the son and husband of the petitioner were arrested on the previous day of recovery in this case and heroin was also recovered from them and the custodial interrogation of the petitioner is necessary to know about the source of the recovery.
Observations of the Court:
The court observed that mere technicalities at the stage of the investigation are not required to be seen and it is to be seen during the trial if Section 42 of the NDPA Act is followed or not. The court further stated that the Investigating Officer must collect each piece of evidence and find the truth and considering the fact that heavy recovery was made, custodial interrogation of the petitioner is necessary.
The decision of the Court:
The court dismissed the petition and concluded that it was not a case where anticipatory bail could be granted.
Case Title: Sito Rani vs. State of Punjab
Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Gurbir Singh
Case No.: CRM-M-60424-2022
Advocate for the Applicant: Mr. Hitesh Chopra
Advocate for the Respondent: Mr. Sarabjit Singh Cheema, DAG, Punjab
Read Judgment @LatestLaws.com
Picture Source :
