Manish Kumar vs Union Of India
2022 Latest Caselaw 1403 P&H

CRM-M Nos. 28463 of 2020 and 5000 of 2021 (O&M)                       -1-

    IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND
                HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH


1. CRM-M-28463-2020


Ajay Kumar                                                       ...Petitioner

                                        Versus


Union of India
through Intelligence Officer, NCB                ...Respondent
_____________________________________________________________

2. CRM-M-5000-2021

Manish Kumar                                                     ...Petitioner

                                        Versus


Union of India
through Intelligence Officer, NCB                              ...Respondent

                                                 Date of decision: 09.03.2022

CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARVIND SINGH SANGWAN

Present:-   Mr. Sandeep Arora, Advocate
            for the petitioner in CRM-M-28463-2020.

            Mr. Ruhani Chadha, Advocate
            for the petitioner in CRM-M-5000-2021.

            Mr. Amit Kumar Goyal, Advocate
            for the respondent-NCB in CRM-M-28463-2020.

            Ms. Gurmeet Kaur Gill, Advocate
            for the respondent-NCB in CRM-M-5000-2021.

            (Through video conferencing)

                                    ********

ARVIND SINGH SANGWAN, J. (Oral)

This common order shall dispose of above noted two petitions

as they arise out of the same FIR.

1 of 4

CRM-M Nos. 28463 of 2020 and 5000 of 2021 (O&M) -2-

Prayer in these petitions, filed under Section 439 of the Code of

Criminal Procedure, is for grant of regular bail to petitioners Ajay Kuamr

and Manish Kumar in case FIR No. 36 dated 02.07.2020, registered under

Sections 8, 22, 25, 29 and 60 of the Narcotic Drugs & Psychotropic

Substances Act, 1985 at Police Station Basti Bawa Khel, Jalandhar.

Learned counsel, appearing for petitioner Ajay Kumar, has

argued that as per version of the prosecution/NCB, on 02.07.2020, an

information was received by the Intelligence Officer that a person named Jai

Prakash (co-accused) is coming to Jalandhar to sell intoxicant tablets i.e.

Tramadol and he can be apprehended with a large of number these tablets.

On receiving such information, a surveillance team was constituted and a

person, as described in the secret information, was seen on a motorcycle

bearing registration number PB-08-CN-3136. He was apprehended by the

NCB and on inquiry, he disclosed his name as 'Jai Prakash' and further

disclosed that he has kept 12 boxes of Tramadol, containing total 3000

tablets. Thereafter, the contraband was taken into possession by the NCB

through a recovery memo. Later on, co-accused Jai Prakash made disclosure

that petitioner Ajay Kumar is working in a courier company and has

supplied him the said tablets with an understanding that he will share the

profits with him. Later on, the NCB arrested petitioner Ajay Kumar and he

disclosed that petitioner Manish Kumar is a resident of Delhi and is also

working in a courier company and has sent a parcel to Ajay Kumar, which

was handed over to co-accused Jai Prakash.

Learned counsel, appearing for petitioner Manish Kumar,

submit that the petitioner was arrested on the disclosure of aforesaid co-

accused Ajay Kumar, who was in fact arrested on the disclosure of

2 of 4

CRM-M Nos. 28463 of 2020 and 5000 of 2021 (O&M) -3-

co-accused Jai Prakash.

It is further submitted that after the arrest of both the

petitioners, no incriminating substance like intoxicant drug/tablets was

recovered from them.

It is further submitted that petitioner Manish Kumar is in

judicial custody for the last 01 year, 05 months and 04 days, whereas

petitioner Ajay Kumar is in judicial custody for the last 01 year and 08

months and they are not involved in any other case and since out of total 11

prosecution witnesses, only 01 witness has been examined so far, the

conclusion of trial is likely to take a long time.

Learned counsel, appearing for the respondent-NCB, on the

basis of the affidavit of the Intelligence Officer, could not dispute the

factual position. In the affidavit, after verifying the sequence of

investigation, it is stated that both the petitioners were nominated on

successive disclosures made by co-accused.

Learned counsel for the petitioner have relied upon the

judgments rendered by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Tofan Singh vs. State of

Tamil Nadu, (2021) 4 SCC 1 and State By (NCB) Bengaluru vs.

Pallulabid Ahmad Arimutta & Anr. 2022 Live Law (SC) 69 to submit that

it will be a matter of trial whether the disclosure of a co-accused will be

admissible against the petitioners or not.

I have heard learned counsel for the parties.

Without commenting upon the merits of the case, considering

the fact that the petitioners are a first offender; they are in long judicial

custody; conclusion of trial is likely to take some time as out of 11

prosecution witnesses, only 01 witness has been examined so far and also in

3 of 4

CRM-M Nos. 28463 of 2020 and 5000 of 2021 (O&M) -4-

view of the ratio of law laid down in the aforesaid judgments relied upon by

the petitioners, the instant petition are allowed. Petitioners Ajay Kumar and

Manish Kumar are ordered to be released on regular bail on their furnishing

bail/surety bonds to the satisfaction of the trial Court/Duty Magistrate/Illaqa

Magistrate, concerned.

A photocopy of this order be placed on the file of other

connected case.

09.03.2022                                     (ARVIND SINGH SANGWAN)
Waseem Ansari                                          JUDGE




                Whether speaking/reasoned                     Yes/No

                Whether reportable                            Yes/No




                                     4 of 4