Punjab-Haryana High Court
Mandeep Singh @ Manpreet Kumar @ ... vs State Of Punjab on 21 December, 2022
CRM-M-49242-2022 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
Sr. No.262 CRM-M-49242-2022 (O&M)
Date of decision : 21.12.2022
Mandeep Singh @ Manpreet Kumar @ Bunty
.....Petitioner(s)
Versus
State of Punjab
..... Respondent(s)
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMAN CHAUDHARY
Present: Mr.Piyush Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner(s)
Mr.Kamalpreet Bawa, AAG, Punjab
AMAN CHAUDHARY, J.
The prayer in the present petition under Section 438 Cr.P.C. is
for the grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner in case FIR No.146 dated
17.08.2022, registered under Section 21, 29 of Narcotic Drugs and
Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, at Police Station Garshankar, District
Hoshiarpur.
As per FIR, the police officials, who were present at Adda
Barapur near T-Point, while on patrolling duty, caught a suspected person,
who disclosed his name as Amanpreet Singh, from whom 25 grams of
heroin was recovered.
Learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that co-
accused, Amanpreet Singh, from whom the allegedly contraband was
recovered has intentionally named him in his disclosure statement, even
when the petitioner had no concern with the alleged recovery. Even
otherwise, such a statement has no value in the eyes of law. He places
1 of 4
reliance on the judgment in the case of Tofan Singh vs. State of Tamil
Nadu, 2020 AIR (Supreme Court) 5592. The petitioner is ready and
willing to join the investigation and cooperate with the investigating
agency. Thus, he prays for grant of anticipatory bail to him.
Learned State counsel opposes the prayer of the petitioner on
the ground that the petitioner was specifically named by co-accused
Amarpreet Singh, in his disclosure statement on 17.8.2022 to the effect that
the heroin recovered from him had been purchased from Bunty, the present
petitioner @ Rs.1000/- per gram to sell it further to his customers.
Custodial interrogation of the petitioner is required in the instant case to
recover the amount and to find the source of origin as also the entire chain
of supply of contraband.
Heard.
It is apposite to make a reference to the order of Hon'ble The
Supreme Court of India in the case of Prabhulal vs. Central Bureau of
Narcotics, wherein the SLP (Crl.) 6722-2022 was dismissed vide order
dated 14.12.2022, affirming the order of dismissal of anticipatory bail by
Madhya Pradesh High Court, by observing thus:-
"We have heard learned counsel for the parties. We find
no reason to grant pre-arrest bail to the petitioner as
prayed for. The Special Leave Petition is, accordingly,
dismissed.
The interim protection granted by order dated
11.10.2022 stands vacated in view of the dismissal of the
special leave petition.
However, if the petitioner surrenders and apply for
regular bail, the same may be considered by the Trial
2 of 4
Court as expeditiously as possible on its own merits in
accordance with law."
Furthermore in the case of State of Haryana vs. Samarth
Kumar, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 622, Hon'ble The Supreme Court of India has
held thus:-
"7. The order of the Special Court granting regular bail
to the respondents shows that the said order was passed
in pursuance of the anticipatory bail granted by the High
Court. Therefore, the same cannot be a ground to hold
that the present appeals have become infructuous.
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 error in granting anticipatory bail to
the respondents.
10. In view of the above, the appeals are allowed. The
impugned orders are set aside. As a consequence, the
Appellate -State is entitled to take steps, in accordance
with law."
In the present case, co-accused Amarpreet Singh in no
uncertain terms, disclosed the name of the petitioner being the person from
whom he had purchased the heroin at the rate of Rs.1000/- per gram in
order to sell it further. The sole ground taken by the petitioner for grant of
anticipatory bail in view of the judgment in the case of Tofan Singh (supra)
that the disclosure statement of co-accused is inadmissible, has no force, as
per the law laid down by Hon'ble The Supreme Court of India in the cases
3 of 4
of Prabhulal and Samarth Kumar (supra). Thus, the allegations against
the petitioner call for a deeper probe, to unearth the modus operandi, source
of origin, chain of supply and find out the involvement of other persons
therein, for which the custodial interrogation of the petitioner is required, so
as to also eradicate the menace of drug proliferating. The grant of pre-arrest
bail in the present case shall be detrimental to the investigation.
The stringent provisions as contained in the statute, are to deal
with the drug menace, plaguing the society, as the youth are being led on a
path having deleterious effects, thereby destroying the very social fabric.
Keeping in view the aforesaid, this Court is not inclined to
grant the concession of anticipatory bail to the petitioner. As a sequel
thereto, the present petition being bereft of merit, is hereby dismissed.
21.12.2022 (AMAN CHAUDHARY)
gsv JUDGE
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes / No
Whether reportable : Yes / No
4 of 4
