Punjab-Haryana High Court
Vinod Godara vs State Of Haryana on 20 July, 2022
CRM-M-30962-2022 -1-
103
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
CRM-M-30962-2022
Date of decision : 20.07.2022
Vinod Godara
...Petitioner
Versus
State of Haryana
...Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIKAS BAHL
Present: Mr. Vikas Bishnoi, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. Anmol Malik, DAG, Haryana.
****
VIKAS BAHL, J. (ORAL)
Prayer in the present petition is for grant of anticipatory bail to
the petitioner in FIR No.213 dated 29.04.2022 registered under Sections
186, 307, 332, 353, 224 (added later on) and 427 of the Indian Penal Code,
1860 and Section 22(C) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances
Act, 1985 (hereinafter to be referred as "the NDPS Act") at Police Station
Sadar Fatehabad, District Fatehabad.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that in the
present case, the alleged recovery has been effected from Bharat Singh @
Chanan and Mati Dass @ Popli and the petitioner is sought to be implicated
solely on the basis of disclosure statements made by the said two co-accused
and even in the said disclosure statements, as per case of the petitioner, the
1 of 5
name has been mentioned as Vinod resident of Bhoda Hoshanak whereas
the present petitioner is Vinod Godara resident of Village Kumharia.
Notice of motion.
On advance notice, Mr. Anmol Malik, DAG, Haryana, appears
and accepts notice on behalf of the State and has submitted that he is fully
prepared to argue the matter and assist this Court. He has opposed the
present petition for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner and submitted
that in the present case, the recovery of 1000 strips containing 10 intoxicant
tablets each, totalling 10000 intoxicant tablets NRX Tramadol
Hydrochloride Prolonged had been effected from the co-accused and the
said recovery would fall under commercial quantity, thus, attracting the bar
under Section 37 of the NDPS Act. It is further submitted that as per the
disclosure statement of the co-accused, it was the present petitioner who had
sold the said intoxicants tablets to the co-accused from whom the recovery
has been effected. It is also submitted that in the said disclosure statement,
the name of the petitioner has been specifically stated to be Vinod Kumar
son of Hanuman resident of Kumharia which is the same as stated in the
present petition and the argument raised by the petitioner to the effect that
his name has been mentioned as Vinod resident of Bhoda Hoshanak is
incorrect. It is also pointed out that in the disclosure statement, it has
specifically been mentioned that the petitioner came riding on his
motorcycle and delivered 10000 intoxicant tablets in a plastic bag to co-
accused Bharat Singh @ Chanan and Mati Dass @ Popli and that mobile
number of the petitioner is 7777003103. It is contended that in addition to
the said disclosure statement, there are call detail records between the
2 of 5
petitioner on his abovesaid mobile number and Bharat Singh of the same
day on which the alleged recovery has been effected and thus, it would be
the present petitioner who would be the main accused who is indulging in
the selling of intoxicant tablets and thus, his custodial interrogation is
necessary. It is further contended that in case, the concession of anticipatory
bail is granted to the petitioner then, the same would prejudice the case of
the prosecution. It is argued that custodial interrogation of the petitioner is
required for the purpose of finding out as to from where the present
petitioner has been procuring the intoxicant tablets and also for the purpose
of recovery of motorcycle used by him for supplying the recovered
contraband.
This Court has heard the learned counsel for the parties and has
perused the paper book.
It is not in dispute that the alleged recovery from the co-
accused Bharat Singh @ Chanan and Mati Dass @ Popli falls under
commercial quantity thus, attracting the bar under Section 37 of the NDPS
Act. Learned State Counsel has handed over a copy of the disclosure
statement of co-accused Bharat Singh @ Chanan, which is taken on record
and the same is marked as Mark "A", as per which, it has specifically been
stated by co-accused Bharat Singh that it is the present petitioner who had
come on his motorcycle and had delivered 10000 intoxicant tablets to
Bharat Singh @ Chanan and Mati Dass @ Popli. The telephone number of
the petitioner has also been mentioned in the said disclosure statement and
the said mobile number is 7777003103. In the said disclosure statement, the
name of the petitioner has been specifically mentioned as Vinod Kumar son
3 of 5
of Hanuman, resident of Kumharia which is in consonance with the name
and address mentioned in the present petition and the argument of the
petitioner to the effect that his name has been mentioned as Vinod resident
of Bhodha Hoshanak is contrary to what has been stated in the disclosure
statement and thus, deserves to be rejected. Nothing has been averred in the
petition so as to suggest that there was any personal enmity between the
petitioner and the said Bharat who had made disclosure statement
implicating the present petitioner in the case. In addition to the above, it is
the stand of the State that there are call detail records showing that calls
have been made between the petitioner and co-accused Bharat on the date
when the recovery was effected and the FIR has been registered.
The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in its latest judgment
dated 19.07.2022 passed in Criminal Appeal Nos.1001-1002 of 2022, titled
as "Narcotics Control Bureau Vs. Mohit Aggarwal", has set aside the order
passed by the High Court of Delhi granting regular bail to the accused
therein. In the said case, the High Court of Delhi had granted bail to the
petitioner therein after the petitioner had been in custody for a period of 1
year and 3 months and after considering the fact that besides the
confessional statements of co-accused recorded under Section 67 of the
NDPS Act, no other incriminating material was forthcoming against the
accused therein. The Hon'ble Supreme Court, after considering the
provisions of Section 37 of the NDPS Act and also after taking into
consideration the fact that there were CDR details of the mobile phones of
all co-accused including the respondent therein showed that they were in
touch with each other and also other factors, set aside the order granting bail
4 of 5
to the petitioner passed by the High Court of Delhi. The fact that there were
CDR details of mobile phones between the accused persons was considered
to be one of the incriminating circumstance against the respondent therein
(accused) from whom no recovery had been effected and who was not
arrested at the spot and was sought to be implicated solely on the basis of
disclosure statement of the co-accused.
In the present case, the custodial interrogation of the petitioner
is required for the purpose of ascertaining as to from whom the petitioner
has procured the intoxicant tablets and also to recover the motorcycle used
by him for supplying the said intoxicant tablets to the co-accused Bharat
Singh @ Chanan and Mati Dass @ Popli.
Keeping in view the abovesaid facts and circumstances, this
Court is of the opinion that the present petitioner does not deserve the
concession of anticipatory bail.
Accordingly, the present petition is dismissed.
However, nothing stated above shall be construed as an
expression of opinion on the merits of the case and the trial would proceed
independently of the observations made in the present case which are only for
the purpose of adjudicating the present bail application.
20.07.2022 (VIKAS BAHL)
Pawan JUDGE
Whether speaking/reasoned:- Yes/No
Whether reportable:- Yes/No
5 of 5
