Punjab-Haryana High Court
Samual @ Samol vs State Of Punjab on 12 December, 2022
101
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
CRM-M-48198-2022 (O&M)
Date of Decision: 12.12.2022
Samual @ Samol ...Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab ...Respondent
CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR VERMA
Present: Mr.Tarun Sharma, Advocatge for the petitioner
Mr.JP Ratra, Sr.DAG, Punjab
ASHOK KUMAR VERMA, J.
CRM-46869-2022
This is an application for placing on record Annexure P-3.
Application is allowed as prayed for.
CRM-46870-2022
This is an application for recalling the order dated
16.11.2022 dismissing the main case for non-prosecution. For the reasons
recorded therein, the application is allowed and the order dated
16.11.2022 is hereby recalled. Main case is restored to its original number
and is taken up for hearing today itself.
CRM-M-48198-2022
Notice of motion.
On the asking of this Court, Mr. J.P. Ratra, Sr. DAG,
1 of 3
CRM-M-48198-2022 :2:
Punjab accepts notice on behalf of the respondent-State.
The petitioner has approached this Court by filing this
petition under Section 438 of the Cr.P.C. for grant of anticipatory bail in
FIR No.0100 dated 15.9.2022 under Section 21 of the NDPS Act
registered at Police Station City Zira, District Ferozepur.
The story of the prosecution in brief is that secret informer
gave the information that the petitioner and co-accused Sandeep Singh
are roaming on motorcycle. They are habitual of selling heroin and if the
raid is conducted at the house of co-accused, both of them can be
apprehended with the huge quanity of heroin.
Learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner, inter alia,
submits that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the said FIR. It
is very strange that in the presence of the police officials, the petitioner
ran away from the spot. Nothing has been recovered from the petitioner.
The petitioner is already ready and willing to join the investigation.
On the contrary, learned counsel for the State submits that
the petitioner is a habitual offender. Six more FIRs have already been
registered against the petitioner and out of 6 FIRs, 3 FIRs have been
registered under the NDPS Act. Recovery of 127 grams of heroin has
been effected from co-accused Sandeep Singh whereas the petitioner
succeeded in running away from the spot.
Having heard learned counsel for the parties, prima facie, I
am of the considered view that the petitioner has been specifically named
in the FIR. The allegations against the petitioner are serious in nature.
Moreover, his antecedents are also not good as he is already involved in
six more cases also. It has been observed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court
in case Gudikanti Narasimhulu v. Public Prosecutor, High Court of
2 of 3
CRM-M-48198-2022 :3:
A.P, (1978) 1 SCC 240 that deprivation of freedom by refusal of bail is
not for punitive purposes but for the bifocal interests of justice. It has
further been observed that it is rational to enquire into the antecedents of
the man who is applying for bail to find out whether he has a bad record,
particularly a record which suggests that he is likely to commit serious
offences while on bail. Moreover, Investigation is still going on. It is
settled proposition of law that power exercisable under Section 438 of the
Cr.P.C. is somewhat extraordinary in character and it is to be exercised in
exceptional cases. This view of mine finds support from the judgment of
Hon'ble Supreme Court in Madhya Pradesh Vs. Pradeep Sharma,
(2014) 2 SCC 171.
In view of the discussion made above, the present petition
being devoid of any merit is dismissed. Nothing said herein shall be
construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case.
(ASHOK KUMAR VERMA)
JUDGE
12.12.2022
MFK
Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No
Whether Reportable Yes/No
3 of 3
