Baljinder Kaur vs State Of Punjab
2022 Latest Caselaw 1262 P&H

CRM-M-9544-2022                                                        -1-

104
      IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
                     CHANDIGARH


                                                CRM-M-9544-2022
                                                Date of decision : 07.03.2022

Baljinder Kaur

                                                                   ...Petitioner

                                       Versus

State of Punjab

                                                                 ...Respondent


CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIKAS BAHL


Present:    Mr. Yashpal Thakur, Advocate for the petitioner.

            Mr. Sarabjit S. Cheema, AAG, Punjab.

            ****

VIKAS BAHL, J. (ORAL)

Prayer in the present petition is for grant of anticipatory bail

to the petitioner in FIR No.255 dated 26.11.2021 registered under

Sections 21/29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act,

1985 at Police Station City Sunam, District Sangrur.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that in the

present case, no recovery has been effected from the petitioner and the

recovery has been effected from one Kaki and even the said recovery is of

5 grams of heroin which falls within the definition of "small quantity"

and is far less than the stipulated commercial quantity which starts from

1 of 4

250 grams. It is further submitted that the petitioner has been implicated

on the basis of statement of co-accused which has been made in the

police custody and is inadmissible in evidence. He has relied upon the

judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Tofan Singh Vs. State

of Tamil Nadu, reported as 2021(1) RCR (Criminal) 1, an order passed

by Coordinate Bench of this Court dated 17.06.2020 in CRM-M-12051-

2020 titled "Mewa Singh Vs. State of Punjab", and an order of another

Coordinate Bench dated 16.07.2021 passed in CRM-M-12997-2020

titled as "Daljit Singh Vs. State of Haryana" to contend that in such like

cases if a person has only been proceeded against on the basis of

disclosure statement of co-accused and no recovery has been effected

from the petitioner, then he should be granted the benefit of anticipatory

bail.

Notice of motion.

On advance notice, Mr. Sarabjit S. Cheema, AAG, Punjab,

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 has submitted that the present petitioner is involved in several other

cases.

Learned counsel for the petitioner, in rebuttal to the

abovesaid argument, has submitted that in all the other cases, the

petitioner has either already undergone sentence or has been granted the

benefit of bail. He has further relied upon the judgment of Hon'ble

2 of 4

Supreme Court in "Maulana Mohd. Amir Rashadi vs. State of U.P. and

another", reported as 2012 (2) SCC 382 to contend that the facts and

circumstances of the present case are to be seen and the bail application

of the petitioner cannot be rejected solely on the ground that the

petitioner is involved in another case. The relevant portion of the said

judgment is reproduced hereinbelow:-

"As observed by the High Court, merely on the basis of criminal antecedents, the claim of the second respondent cannot be rejected. In other words, it is the duty of the Court to find out the role of the accused in the case in which he has been charged and other circumstances such as possibility of fleeing away from the jurisdiction of the Court etc."

Keeping in view the abovesaid facts and circumstances

moreso, the fact that no recovery has been effected from the petitioner

and even the recovery effected from the co-accused is of 5 grams of

heroin which falls within the definition of "small quantity" and is far less

than the stipulated commercial quantity, which starts from 250 grams,

and also in view of the law laid down in Tofan Singh's case (Supra),

Mewa Singh's case (Supra), Daljit Singh's case (Supra) and Maulana

Mohd. Amir Rashadi's case (Supra), the present petition is allowed and

in the event of arrest, the petitioner is granted the concession of

anticipatory bail subject to her furnishing personal bonds and surety to

the satisfaction of Arresting/Investigating Officer and the conditions

envisaged under Section 438(2) of Cr.P.C. However, the petitioner shall

join the investigation as and when called upon to do so.

3 of 4

It is made clear, in case, the petitioner fails to join the

investigation or does not cooperate with the investigation, then the State

would be at liberty to move an application for cancellation of the present

anticipatory bail granted to the petitioner.

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.

07.03.2022                                            (VIKAS BAHL)
Pawan                                                    JUDGE


             Whether speaking/reasoned:-              Yes/No

             Whether reportable:-                     Yes/No




                                4 of 4