Punjab-Haryana High Court
Tirlok Singh vs State Of Haryana on 12 December, 2022
CRM-M-53546-2022 # 1#
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH.
CRM-M-53546-2022
Date of Decision:-09.12.2022
Tirlok Singh.
......Petitioner.
Versus
State of Haryana.
......Respondents.
CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASJIT SINGH BEDI
Present:- Mr. Karandeep S. Sidhu, Advocate for the Petitioner.
Mr. Neeraj Poswal, Assistant Advocate General, Haryana.
***
JASJIT SINGH BEDI, J. (ORAL)
The Prayer in this petition under Section 439 Cr.PC is for the
grant of regular bail in case FIR No.639 dated 27.07.2022 under Sections
15(C) 27, 61, 85 of NDPS Act registered at Police Station Azad Nagar,
Hisar, District Hisar.
The brief facts of the case are that while the police party was on
patrolling duty a secret informer informed that Sukhwinder @ Sukha, Raju
Singh, Rajender Singh @ Raju and Karamjeet deal in Poppy Husk. They
had brought a huge quantity of Poppy Husk in bags from Rajasthan and
were sitting along with the bags of Poppy Husk near general Chopal at
village Muklan and were waiting for some transport for going to Punjab. If
a raid was conducted they could be apprehended.
Based on this information, the four persons were apprehended
with the bags. The first person disclosed his name as Sukhwinder @ Sukha,
1 of 4
CRM-M-53546-2022 # 2#
the second as Raju Singh, the third as Rajender Singh @ Raju and the fourth
as Karamjeet Singh. From the seven bags 52 Kgs 500 Grams of Poppy
Husk were recovered.
Thereafter during interrogation one of the accused namely
Sukhwinder @ Sukha named the petitioner in the present case. Based on
the said statement of the co-accused, the petitioner was nominated as an
accused and arrested on 02.08.2022 after which an offence under Section 27
of the NDPS Act was added in the present FIR.
The Counsel for the petitioner contends that the disclosure
statement of a accused against co-accused is inadmissible in evidence as is
apparent from the judgments in Tofan Singh Vs. State of Tamil Nadu,
2020 AIR (Supreme Court) 5592, Rakesh Kumar Singla Vs. Union of
India 2021(1) RCR (Criminal) 704, State by (NCB) Bengaluru Vs.
Pallulabid Ahmad Arimutta &Anr. 2022(1) RCR (Criminal) 762,
Surinder Kumar Khanna Vs. Intelligence Officer, Director of Revenue
Intelligence, 2018(3) RCR (Criminal) 954 and Sanjeev Chandra
Aggarwal & Anr. Versus Union of India 2021(4) RCR (Criminal) 590.
Further the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Haryana
Vs. Samarth Kumar 2022(3) RCR (Criminal) 991 would come to the aid
of the petitioner since this is a regular bail application. No recovery
whatsoever has been effected from the petitioner and even the recovery
effected from the arrested accused of 52 Kgs 500 Grams of Poppy Husk is
marginally above the commercial quantity. In the other case registered
against the petitioner, the petitioner has been convicted and sentenced to
undergo imprisonment for one month vide judgment dated 17.09.2021
(Annexure P-4). Thus the petitioner is entitled to the grant of bail.
2 of 4
CRM-M-53546-2022 # 3#
The Counsel for the State on the other hand does not dispute
the factual position as narrated hereinabove. He however, submits that
since the petitioner is a convict in a case under the NDPS Act, the petitioner
ought not to be granted the concession of bail in view of Section 37 of the
NDPS Act.
I have heard learned Counsel for the parties at length.
Admittedly, the petitioner is not named in the FIR but his name
finds mention in the disclosure statement of his co-accused. The evidentiary
value of the said statement shall be adjudicated upon during the course of
trial. Be that as it may, the recovery from the arrested accused is also of
contraband marginally above the commercial quantity. As no recovery
whatsoever has been effected from the petitioner, and he has been named on
a disclosure statement the provisions of Section 37 of the NDPS Act can be
relaxed to an extent more so when in the earlier case also the petitioner has
been convicted for a period of one month for having in his possession
05Kgs of Poppy Husk.
Thus, without commenting on the merits of the case, the present
petition is allowed and petitioner-Tirlok Singh son of Sh. Makhan Singh is
ordered to be released on bail subject to the satisfaction of learned
CJM/Duty Magistrate, concerned.
The petitioner shall appear before the police station concerned
on the first Monday of every month till the conclusion of the trial and
inform in writing that he is not involved in any other crime other than the
cases mentioned in this order.
In addition, the petitioner (or any one on their behalf) shall
prepare a FDR in the sum of Rs.2,00,000/- and deposit the same with the
3 of 4
CRM-M-53546-2022 # 4#
Trial Court. The same would be liable to be forfeited as per law in case of
the absence of the petitioner from trial without sufficient cause.
The petition stand disposed of.
( JASJIT SINGH BEDI )
JUDGE
December 09, 2022
Vinay
Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No
Whether reportable Yes/No
4 of 4
