Happy Singh vs State Of Haryana
2022 Latest Caselaw 17305 P&H

CRM-M No.55779 of 2022 (O&M)                           1


101        IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
                      AT CHANDIGARH

                                CRM-M No.55779 of 2022 (O&M)
                                Date of decision : 20.12.2022

Happy Singh                                           ...... Petitioner

                                versus

State of Haryana                                      ...... Respondent

CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE PANKAJ JAIN
                      ***
Present :- Mr. Jashandeep Singh Sandhu, Advocate
           for the petitioner.

           Mr. Sumit Jain, Addl.AG, Haryana.

                     ***

PANKAJ JAIN, J. (ORAL)

The petitioner has prayed for grant of pre-arrest bail in FIR

No.505 dated 16.09.2022 registered under Section 21(b) of the NDPS

Act, 1985 at Police Station City Mandi Dubwali, District Sirsa, Haryana.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner

has not been named in the FIR but has been nominated merely on the

basis of disclosure statement suffered by co-accused namely Binder

Singh @ Pinda and Satnam Singh from whom contraband was

recovered. He further submits that apart from the disclosure made by

co-accused there is no cogent material on record to link the petitioner to

the offence alleged. He relies upon ratio of law laid down in Tofan

Singh Vs. State of Tamil Nadu, (2021) 4 SCC 1 to contend that the

disclosure made by co-accused cannot be relied upon to drive home

offence against the present petitioner and thus he would be entitled for

pre-arrest bail.

1 of 3

Per contra, learned State counsel submits that in view of ratio

of law laid down in State of Haryana Vs. Samarth Kumar (2022) 3

RCR Cri.991, the petitioner cannot be granted concession of dictum as

laid down in Tofan Singh's case (supra).

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone

through the records of the case.

The question thus arises is as to whether concession of dictum

of law laid down in the case of Tofan Singh's case (supra) can be

considered at the time of consideration of pre-arrest bail claimed by the

petitioner. The Apex Court in the case of Samarth Kumar's case

(supra) held as under :-

"4. The High Court decided to grant pre-arrest bail to the respondents on the only ground that no recovery was effected from the respondents and that they had been implicated only on the basis of the disclosure statement of the main accused Dinesh Kumar. Therefore, reliance was placed by the High Court in the majority judgment of this Court in Tofan Singh v. State of Tamil Nadu reported in (2021) 4 SCC 1.

"xxx xxx xxx

8. In cases of this nature, the respondents may be able to take advantage of the decision in Tofan Singh vs. State of Tamil Nadu (supra), perhaps at the time of arguing the regular bail application or at the time of final hearing after conclusion of the trial.

9. To grant anticipatory bail in a case of this nature is not really warranted. Therefore, we are of the view that the High Court fell into an error in granting anticipatory bail to the respondents."

Thereafter another matter involving nomination of an accused

on the disclosure of co-accused came before the Apex Court in the case

of Prabhulal Vs. Central Bureau of Narcotics in Special Leave to

Appeal (Criminal) No.6744/2022. Apex Court vide order dated

11.10.2022 granted interim protection to the petitioner therein.

2 of 3

However, admittedly the same finally resulted in dismissal of the pre-

arrest bail vide order dated 14.12.2022.

In view of the aforesaid facts and the ratio of law laid down by

the Apex Court in the case of Samarth Kumar's case (supra), it can be

safely concluded that the benefit of ratio of law laid down in the case of

Tofan Singh's case (supra) cannot be granted to an accused while

considering pre-arrest bail.

In view of the aforesaid settled law, no ground to grant pre-

arrest bail to the petitioner is made out. Consequently, the same is

ordered to be dismissed.

Needless to say nothing recorded hereinabove should be

construed as expression on merits of the case.

                                              ( PANKAJ JAIN )
                                                  JUDGE
20.12.2022
Pooja sharma-I
                    Whether speaking/reasoned        Yes
                    Whether Reportable :             No




                                3 of 3