Punjab-Haryana High Court
Malwinder Singh @ Raman vs State Of Punjab on 28 October, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
CRM-M-44916-2021
Date of decision: 28.10.2021
Malwinder Singh @ Raman .... Petitioner
V/s
State of Punjab ...Respondent(s)
(Through Video Conferencing)
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI
Present: Mr. Yuv Raj Saini, Advocate,
for Ms. Anshika Sharma, Advocate, for the petitioner.
Mr. Kirat Singh Sidhu, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab.
(keeping in view the advance copy given).
*****
HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI, J. (ORAL)
In the present case, the prayer of the petitioner is for grant of
anticipatory bail in FIR No.215 dated 26.09.2021, under Sections 22(C) of the
NDPS Act (Section 29 of the NDPS Act added later on vide DDR No.32 dated
28.09.2021 (Annexure P-2) registered at Police Station City Kotkapura, District
Faridkot. Learned counsel for the petitioner argues that in the present case no
recovery of the contraband has been done from the petitioner and the petitioner
has only been arrested on the basis of disclosure statement of co-accused
namely Pawan Kumar and Kuldeep Singh @ Mintu from whom 1850 intoxicant
tablets were recovered. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that keeping
in view the fact that no recovery has been done from the petitioner, the
petitioner, who is ready to join the investigation and co-operate the same, may
kindly be extended the benefit of bail.
Notice of motion.
1 of 3
CRM-M-44916-2021 ::2::
Mr. Kirat Singh Sidhu, learned Deputy Advocate General , Punjab,
who has joined the proceedings through video conference, on the other hand,
submits that in the disclosure statement of the co-accused, it has come on
record that they purchased the intoxicant tablets from the petitioner and even
the sale consideration of the contraband has been disclosed in the disclosure
statement and therefore, the custodial interrogation of the petitioner is necessary
to find out the source of the said contraband. Learned counsel for the State
submits that the petitioner is also facing another case for violating the
provisions of NDPS Act.
I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through
the record with their able assistance.
In the present case, the allegation against the petitioner is that
during the investigation, it has come on record that the contraband recovered
from the co-accused namely Pawan Kumar and Kuldeep Singh @ Mintu, was
purchased from the petitioner. The source of the said contraband needs to be
elicited during the investigation. Even the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the
judgment titled as "State represented by CBI versus Anil Sharma, 1997(4) RCR
(Criminal) 268, has held that in case where serious allegations have been
alleged and the truth needs to be elicited from the accused, same can only be
done through custodial interrogation as compared to questioning the suspect,
who is already on anticipatory bail.
In the facts and circumstances of the case, in order to elicit the
truth, the custodial interrogation of the petitioner is necessary. Keeping in view
the fact that the drug menace is grappling the society and the same needs to be
curbed at the earliest, no ground is made out for grant of anticipatory bail.
2 of 3
CRM-M-44916-2021 ::3::
Petition is hereby dismissed.
However, it is made clear that anything observed herein shall not be
construed to be an expression of any opinion on the merits of the case.
(HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI)
JUDGE
October 28, 2021
sukhpreet
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No
Whether reportable : Yes/No
3 of 3
