Punjab-Haryana High Court
Jatin Nanda vs State Of Punjab on 7 December, 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH.
Sr. No.203
Case No. : CRM-M-50081 of 2022
Date of Decision : December 07, 2022
Jatin Nanda .... Petitioner
vs.
State of Punjab .... Respondent
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GURBIR SINGH.
* * *
Present : Mr. Ashok Giri, Advocate
for the petitioner.
Mr. Karandeep Sharma, AAG, Punjab.
* * *
GURBIR SINGH, J. :
The present petition under Section 438 Cr.P.C. has been filed
by the petitioner for grant of pre-arrest bail in case FIR No.167 dated
07.10.2022, under Section 22 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic
Substances Act, 1985 (for short - the Act) (Section 29 of the Act added later
on), registered at Police Station Kartarpur, District Jalandhar (Rural).
Pursuant to order dated 29.10.2022, Status Report by way of
affidavit of Surinderpal, PPS, Deputy Superintendent of Police, Sub-
Division Kartarpur, District Jalandhar (Rural), has been filed by learned
State counsel, which is ordered to be taken on record.
I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the
case file.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the
petitioner was no t named in the FIR. He was subsequently nominated in
1 of 5
CRM-M-50081 of 2022 : 2 :
this case on the basis of disclosure statement made by co-accused Hardeep
Singh, who was found in possession of 7000 tablets alleged to be containing
some intoxicants. While in custody, during investigation, he suffered
disclosure statement that he had been purchasing the said tablets from the
petitioner for the last 8-9 months. The petitioner is running a Chemist shop
being Proprietor of Capital Pharma. He has been issued license for sale,
stock or exhibit for sale or distribution by retail and also wholesale the
drugs under the Drugs and Cosmetics Rules, 1945. The said licenses are
valid up to 23.01.2006.
Counsel for the petitioner further submitted that is well settled
that onus to prove the charge under Section 29 of the Act rests upon the
prosecution, as has been held by a Division Bench of this Court in Nek
Chand @ Neka and another vs. State of Haryana reported as 2015 (2)
RCR (Criminal) 691. Since the petitioner has nothing to do with the
recovered drugs, Section 37 of the Act must be construed in a pragmatic
manner and it cannot be construed in such a way so as to negate right of a
party to obtain bail. It is further contended that earlier also, a false was
registered against the petitioner. In that case, brother of the petitioner
moved an application for inquiry. After conducting inquiry, the then Deputy
Superintendent of Police recommended action against the officials. Now,
the petitioner has been involved in the instant case to take revenge.
Learned State counsel, on the other hand, while opposing the
prayer made by learned counsel for the petitioner, has submitted that other
2 of 5
CRM-M-50081 of 2022 : 3 :
than the present FIR, earlier also, FIR No. 113 dated 01.07.2018, under
Section 22/61/85 of the Act was registered at Police Station Division No.1,
Jalandhar against the petitioner.
Learned State counsel further stated that 7000 intoxicating
tablets were recovered from the possession of Hardeep Singh. As per the
disclosure statement, 120 used strips of 50/50 tablets each of Tramadol
Hydrochloride were recovered from the disclosed place. While in custody,
Hardeep Singh has made a disclosure statement that he had been purchasing
the intoxicating tablets Tramadol from the petitioner for the last 8-9 months.
After purchasing the same, those were being sold to young boys in loose
form. He further disclosed that he used to contact the petitioner from his
mobile number 70878-70488 to the petitioner's mobile number 79863-
84037. The call details of the mobile number of the petitioner w.e.f.
01.09.2022 to 06.10.2022 were obtained. There are 40 calls between the
above-said parties. As per the call detail, Hardeep Singh had called the
petitioner at 01:07 PM on 06.10.2022 whereas the petitioner had called him
at 10:13 PM on the same day i.e. 06.10.2022. So, they were regularly in
touch.
To support his case, learned State counsel has relied upon a
judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Haryana vs. Samarth
Kumar reported as 2022 (3) RCR (Criminal) 991, and also a judgment
passed by this Court in the case of Rajni Kaur vs. State of Punjab passed
by a Co-ordinate Bench in CRM-M-25142-2022, decided on 24.11.2022.
It is not disputed that 7000 intoxicating tablets were recovered
3 of 5
CRM-M-50081 of 2022 : 4 :
from the co-accused Hardeep Singh. On the basis of disclosure statement,
Section 29 of the Act was added and petitioner was nominated in this case.
The petitioner is having retail as well as wholesale license to sell the drugs.
The recovery of intoxicating tablets from Hardeep Singh apparently is of the
commercial quantity. Since Hardeep Singh is not having any drug license,
the petitioner could not have sold the huge quantity of drugs to Hardeep
Singh in such a manner. Such a huge quantity of intoxicating tablets could
not be sold in retail. In case of Rajni Kaur (supra), a Co-ordinate Bench of
this Court, following the judgment of Toofan Singh vs. State of Tamil
Nadu reported as 2021 (1) RCR (Criminal) 1, held that anticipatory bail
cannot be granted to an accused on the ground that he has only been named
on the basis of a disclosure statement of the co-accused and the judgment in
Toofan Singh (supra) may be relevant for the grant of regular bail or at the
time of final adjudication of the trial.
The present case would squarely fall within the four corners of
the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Samarth Kumar's case
(supra). Another case under the Act was also registered against the
petitioner in the year 2018 and trial of said case is pending in the Court of
Judge, Special Court, Jalandhar. The custodial interrogation of the
petitioner is necessary so as to complete the chain of supply and also to find
out the persons who are involved in the drug trade.
Keeping in view the above said facts and totality of
circumstances and also in view of the law laid down in the afore-said
4 of 5
CRM-M-50081 of 2022 : 5 :
judgments, I find no merit in the present petition filed for grant of
anticipatory bail.
Dismissed.
Nothing stated herein above shall be construed as an expression
of opinion on the merits of the case.
December 07, 2022 (GURBIR SINGH)
monika JUDGE
Whether speaking/reasoned ? Yes/No.
Whether reportable ? Yes/No.
5 of 5
