Punjab-Haryana High Court
Pawan Kumar vs State Of Haryana on 20 December, 2022
CRM-M No.58145 of 2022 (O&M) 1
105 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CRM-M No.58145 of 2022 (O&M)
Date of decision : 20.12.2022
Pawan Kumar ...... Petitioner
versus
State of Haryana ...... Respondent
CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE PANKAJ JAIN
***
Present :- Mr. Dheeraj Narula, 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.511 dated 25.09.2022 registered under Sections 15 & 27-A of the
NDPS Act, 1985 at Police Station Fatehabad, District Fatehabad
(Haryana).
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the name of the
petitioner does not figure in the FIR. Recovery of 14 kg. of Poppy husk
was effected from one Sukhwinder Singh @ Gollu who already stands
admitted to regular bail vide order dated 01.11.2022 passed by the
Courts below. Said Sukhwinder Singh @ Gollu is stated to have
suffered disclosure statement wherein he has nominated the petitioner as
the source of contraband. Reliance has been placed upon Tofan Singh
Vs. State of Tamil Nadu, (2021) 4 SCC 1 to submit that such disclosure
made by the co-accused before the police authorities cannot be said to be
a cogent evidence against the petitioner.
1 of 3
Per contra, learned State counsel submits that in terms of
mandate of State of Haryana Vs. Samarth Kumar (2022) 3 RCR
Cri.991 the aforesaid plea raised by learned counsel for the petitioner
cannot be considered at the time of grant of pre-arrest bail.
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
