The single judge bench of Justice Namit Kumar of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in the case of Surjit Singh V. State of Punjab held that even if the petitioner has been nominated on the basis of the disclosure statement of the co-accused, he cannot escape from his liability and also cannot claim the relief of pre-arrest bail only on this ground.
BRIEF FACTS
The factual matrix of the case is that during the patrolling, the police got to know that one Surjit Singh is involved in the business of bringing poppy husk from other states. Thereafter, the secret information was provided that drivers were bringing heavy quantity of poppy husk for Surjit Singh and if the proper raid is conducted, the culprits can be apprehended along with the large quantity of poppy husk. Further, when the raid was conducted poppy husks weighing 52 Kg were recovered.
The present petition is filed under section 438 Cr.Pc in order to seek anticipatory bail for the petitioner under sections 15/25/29 of the NDPS Act, 1985.
The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has contended that the petitioner is implicated in the case only because of the disclosure statement made by the co-accused- Davinder Singh. It was further submitted that nothing is recovered from the petitioner and he is ready to join the investigation,
The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the state contended that the quantity recovered is the commercial quantity and even if he is implicated in the case because of the disclosure statement of the co-accused, he does not deserve the concession of bail. The counsel also relied upon the judgment titled the State of Haryana versus Samarth Kumar.
COURT’S OBSERVATION
The hon’ble high court held that even if the petitioner has been nominated on the basis of disclosure statement of the co-accused-Davinder Singh, he cannot escape from his liability and also cannot claim the relief of pre-arrest bail only on this ground. Therefore, the high court denied the pre-arrest bail after considering that the alleged recovered quantity of contraband is commercial.
CASE NAME- Surjit Singh V. State of Punjab
CITATION- CRM-M-46007-2022
CORUM- Justice Namit Kumar
DATE- 03.10.22
Read Judgment @Latestlaws.com
Picture Source :
