Punjab-Haryana High Court
Chamkaur Singh vs State Of Haryana on 22 December, 2022
CRM-M-41585-2022 ::1::
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
CRM-M-41585-2022 (O & M)
Date of decision: 22.12.2022
Chamkaur Singh .... Petitioner
V/s
State of Haryana ...Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASJIT SINGH BEDI
Present: Mr. Manvinder Sidhu, Advocate, for the petitioner.
Mr. Kanwar Sanjiv Kumar, AAG, Haryana.
*****
JASJIT SINGH BEDI, J. (Oral)
The prayer in the present petition under Section 439 Cr.P.C. is
for the grant of regular bail to the petitioner in case FIR No.0304 dated
30.06.2022 under Sections 15, 27-A, 29 of the NDPS Act, registered at
Police Station City Mandi Dabwali, District Sirsa.
2. The brief facts of the case are that while the police party was on
patrolling duty, secret information was received that Surender Singh alias
Babbi son of Angrej Singh and Hargobind Singh @ Ghilla son of Hardev
Singh, owner and truck driver of truck No.HR 57A-7298, namely, Gursewak
Singh @ Sewak, Brezza car No.HR-25H-2885 and truck conductor name
not known alongwith others did the business of selling doda post. They
were bringing doda post in large quantity frrom Madhya Pradesh in a truck
and would unload the truck at village Desujodha in the nearby fields and by
concealing it in the fields they would further sell to their customers by
contacting them. On 29.06.2022 at night, Surender Singh alias Babbi filled
doda post in the said truck bearing No.HR57A-7298 and piloting the truck
was a Brezza car bearing No.HR-25H-2885. The doda post was brought to
1 of 5
CRM-M-41585-2022 ::2::
village Desujodha and was hidden in a room in the fields of Harjeet Singh
and that land was taken on lease from Hargobind Singh @ Ghilla. Surender
Singh @ Babbi and Hargobind Singh @ Ghilla were sitting together in the
front of the room built in the fields waiting for the customers and trying to
sell the doda post. If the place was raided, then the persons could be
apprehended.
Based on the information, the FIR was registered, a raid was
conducted and a recovery of 1050 Kgs. of doda post was effected.
During the course of investigation, Surender Singh @ Babbi and
Hargobind Singh @ Ghilla made their confessions that out of 50 bags of
doda post brought by them, 05 bags were sold to Chamkaur Singh
(petitioner). Based on the said statement, the petitioner was arrayed as an
accused.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner
has been falsely implicated in the present case. No recovery whatsoever has
been effected from him. He has been only named in the disclosure statement
of his co-accused which is inadmissible in evidence. He contends that as per
the judgment in 'State of Haryana versus Samarth Kumar, 2022(3) RCR
(Criminal) 991' the case of the petitioner could be consider for the grant of
regular bail. He also contends that the petitioner is a convict in one other
case where he has been granted the concession of suspension of sentence
vide order dated 13.03.2020 (Annexure P-6). He, thus, contends that since
the petitioner is in custody since 05.07.2022, the further incarceration of the
petitioner is not required.
4. The learned counsel for the State, on the other hand, contends
that the petitioner was named in the disclosure statement of his co-accused.
He is a prior convict for having committed an offence under the NDPS Act.
2 of 5
CRM-M-41585-2022 ::3::
Therefore, his antecedents do not entitle him to the grant of the bail. Even
otherwise, Rs.1,00,000/- was recovered from him at the time of his arrest
which is proceeds of crime.
5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties.
6. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of 'Samarath Kumar
(supra)', has 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 vs.
State of Tamil Nadu reported in (2021) 4 SCC 1.
5. But, it is contended by the learned Additional Advocate
General appearing on behalf of the State of Haryana that on
the basis of the anticipatory bail granted to the respondents, the
Special Court was constrained to grant regular bail even to the
main accused-Dinesh Kumar and he jumped bail. Fortunately,
the main accused-Dinesh Kumar has again been apprehended.
According to the learned Additional Advocate General, the
respondent in the second of these appeals is also a habitual
offender.
6. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent in
the first of these Appeals contends that the State is guilty of
suppression of the vital fact that the respondent was granted
regular bail after the charge-sheet was filed and that therefore,
nothing survives in the appeal. But, we do not agree.
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
3 of 5
CRM-M-41585-2022 ::4::
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".
7. Admittedly, the petitioner is named in the disclosure statement
of his co-accused. Pursuant to his arrest, no recovery has been effected from
him. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in 'Tofan Singh versus State of Tamil
Nadu, 2020 AIR (Supreme Court) 5592', 'Rakesh Kumar Singla versus
Union of India 2021 (1) RCR (Criminal) 704'; 'Surinder Kumar Khanna
versus Intelligence Officer Directorate of Revenue Intelligence, 2018(3)
RCR (Criminal) 954'; 'State by (NCB) Bengaluru versus Pallulabid Ahmad
Arimutta & Anr. 2022(1) RCR (Criminal) 762' and 'Sanjeev Chandra
Agarwal & Anr. Versus Union of India 2021(4) RCR (Criminal) 590', has
held that the statement of an accused against his co-accused in police
custody, is inadmissible in evidence. Whether the recovery of Rs.1,00,000/-
from the petitioner is proceeds of crime or not would be adjudicated upon
during the course of the Trial. In the case in which the petitioner has been
convicted, he has been granted the concession of suspension of sentence by
this Court vide order Annexure P-6. As such, the further incarceration of the
petitioner is not required.
8. In view of the above, without commenting upon the merits of
the case, the present petition is allowed and the petitioner, namely,
Chamkaur Singh, is ordered to be released on bail to the satisfaction of the
Trial Court/Duty Magistrate concerned.
4 of 5
CRM-M-41585-2022 ::5::
9. The petitioner shall appear on the first Monday of every month
before the local police station till the conclusion of the trial and furnish an
affidavit each time that he is not involved in any crime other than the cases
referred to hereinabove.
10. In addition, the petitioner (or someone on his behalf) shall prepare an
FDR in the sum of Rs.2,00,000/- and deposit the same with the 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.
( JASJIT SINGH BEDI)
JUDGE
December 22, 2022
sukhpreet
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No
Whether reportable : Yes/No
5 of 5
