The High Court of Punjab and Haryana refused to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner accused under NDPS Act and held that when there are multiple FIRs against an accused then twin conditions as envisaged under Section 37 of the NDPS Act - one being that accused is not guilty and he is not likely to commit an offence while on bail - cannot be satisfied and a habitual offender is not entitled to the grant of bail even under the provisions of the Cr.P.C.
Brief Facts:
A person, caught with Alprazolam tablets and MTP kits in his disclosure statement revealed that he had purchased the intoxicants from the petitioner after which an FIR was lodged against him under Sections 21(c), 22(c) and 25 of the NDPS Act. The petitioner then filed the present petition under Section 438 CrPC seeking anticipatory bail.
Contentions of the Petitioner:
The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner contended that the petitioner is named in the disclosure statement of his co-accused which has very little evidentiary value and he was thus entitled to the concession of anticipatory bail.
Contentions of the Respondent:
The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent contended that the respondent was a habitual offender and another case was registered against him under the NDPS Act and the antecedents of the petitioner did not entitle him to grant anticipatory bail.
Observations of the court:
The court referred to the judgment in Vijay Singh v. The State of Haryana, wherein the accused was granted the concession of anticipatory bail even though he had been an accused in another case under the NDPS Act in which he was on bail and the judgment in Ranjit Singh v. State of Punjab wherein the court held that "where there were multiple FIRs against an accused over a period of time then, even though he had been named in a disclosure statement, he was not entitled to the concession of bail."
The court stated that in the present case where the petitioner has been nominated as an accused on the basis of the disclosure statement of the co-accused, the petitioner is also an accused in another case registered under Sections 21C, 22C and 29 of the NDPS Act and it is highly unlikely that the petitioner would have been implicated in multiple FIRs at the whims and fancies if the Investigating Agency.
It was further stated that when there are multiple FIRs against an accused over a significant period of time, then the twin conditions as envisaged under Section 37 of the NDPS Act that he had not committed an offence and was not likely to commit an offence cannot be satisfied and the limitation to the grant of bail under Section 37 of the NDPS Act are in addition to those prescribed under the Cr.P.C. or any other law in force on the grant of bail and thus a habitual offender is not entitled to the grant of bail even under the provisions of the Cr.P.C. keeping in view his criminal antecedents and in such cases, the custodial interrogation is certainly necessary even though the accused may have joined investigation at an earlier stage.
The court concluded that keeping in view the conduct of the petitioner and his criminal antecedents, his custodial interrogation would certainly be necessary to effect recoveries and to take the investigation to its logical conclusion.
The decision of the Court:
The court found the petition devoid of merits and dismissed it.
Case Title: Mohammad Rayyan Ansari vs. State of Haryana
Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Jasjit Singh Bedi
Case No.: CRM-M-42482-2023
Advocate for the Petitioner: Mr. Mohd. Uzair
Advocate for the Respondent: Mr. Kanwar Sanjiv Kumar
Read Judgment @LatestLaws.com
Picture Source :
