Punjab-Haryana High Court
Vinay Gupta vs State Of Punjab on 22 March, 2022
CRM-M-11003-2022 -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
CRM-M-11003-2022 (O&M)
Date of decision: 22.03.2022
Vinay Gupta
... Petitioner
Vs.
State of Punjab
... Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARVIND SINGH SANGWAN
Present: Mr. Ruhani Chadha, Advocate
for the petitioner.
Mr. Joginder Pal Ratra, DAG, Punjab.
*******
ARVIND SINGH SANGWAN, J. (ORAL)
Prayer in this petition is for grant of regular bail in FIR No.32
dated 01.03.2021 under Sections 22 & 25 of NDPS Act (Section 29 of NDPS
Act was added later on), registered at Police Station Dakha, District Ludhiana
Rural.
Learned counsel for the petitioner relies upon the order dated
04.03.2022 passed in CRM-M-8216-2022, vide which co-accused Mandeep
Singh @ Manga has been granted the concession of regular bail. The operative
part of the order reads as under: -
"...Learned counsel further relies upon order dated 10.02.2022
passed in CRM-M-33309-2021 (Annexure P-3), vide which co-
1 of 7
accused Daksh Arora has also been granted the concession of
regular bail by this Court. The operative part of the order reads as
under:
"Learned counsel for the petitioner relies upon the order
dated 23.12.2021 passed in CRM-M-52196-2021, vide which
co-accused Honey Sehgal has already been granted the
concession of regular bail by this Court. The operative part of
the order reads as under: -
"...Counsel for the petitioner has argued that as per the
allegations in the FIR, registered at the instance of ASI
Harpreet Singh, while on a patrol duty, he along with
other co-police officials received a secret information
that one Sukhpal Singh @ Pali is indulged in the
business of selling of intoxicant tablets and he is
coming on a motorcycle to Mullanpur side for
supplying the same and if a barrier is put up, he can be
apprehended with huge quantity of the tablets. On
receiving the information, a ruqa was sent to the Police
Station for conducting the investigation and thereafter,
the police party apprehended him and recovered 15000
intoxicant tablets of TRAMADOL HYDROCHLORIDE.
Later on, Sukhpal Singh disclosed the name of one
Mandeep Singh @ Manga from whom, he has taken the
said tablets and on arrest of Mandeep Singh @ Manga,
40,000 intoxicant tablets were recovered. Again, on the
2 of 7
basis of the disclosure statement of Mandeep Singh, the
petitioner was nominated in the case and 25,000 tablets
were recovered. It is also submitted that the petitioner
is the first offender and he is in custody for the last
about 03 months and 27 days; the investigation is
complete; challan stands presented, however, charges
are yet to be framed and there are 18 PWs and it will
take long time in conclusion of the trial. Counsel for the
petitioner has further submitted that on an earlier
occasion, the petitioner was granted interim bail
awaiting the report of the FSL and on receiving the
report, in compliance of the order of this Court, the
petitioner has surrendered back. It is further submitted
that during the said intervening period, when he was on
interim bail for a period of about 04 months, he has not
misused the concession of bail and has surrendered
back on time as per the directions of this Court.
Counsel for the petitioner has also submitted that
the police has recorded the successive disclosure
statements of the accused persons, therefore, it will be
matter of trial whether the nomination of the petitioner,
on the basis of the disclosure statement of the co-
accused, is admissible in the case in view of the
judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court "Tofan Singh
vs State of Tamil Nadu", 2013(4) RCR (Criminal) 631.
3 of 7
Counsel for the State has not disputed the factual
position. It is also not disputed that the petitioner is not
involved in any other case and he has not misused the
concession of bail, however, counsel for the State has
submitted that the recovery is of commercial quantity
and therefore, he should not be granted the concession
of bail..."
As per allegations in the FIR, on receiving a secret
information that Sukhpal Singh @ Pali is habitual of selling
intoxicant tablets and is coming in the area of Mullanpur to
sell the same on motorcycle, he was apprehended and 15000
intoxicant tablets were recovered from him.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that on the
basis of disclosure statement of Sukhpal Singh @ Pali,
Mandeep Singh @ Manga was nominated and 40000 tablets of
Tramadol Hydrochloride were recovered from him and on his
disclosure statement, Honey Sehgal was nominated and
recovery of 25000 intoxicant tablets was effected from him. It
is further submitted that on the basis of disclosure statement of
co-accused Honey Sehgal, one Vishal Anand was nominated
and from him, 100000 intoxicant tablets were recovered and
on his disclosure statement, the petitioner was nominated and
5000 intoxicant tablets were recovered from him. It is also
submitted that though after receiving the secret information,
the Investigating Officer, when arrested first accused Sukhpal
4 of 7
Singh @ Pali, a proper procedure was followed and he was
given notice under Section 50 of NDPS Act, however, in the
subsequent change, when disclosure statements of other
accused were recorded and the police had prior information of
involvement of subsequent accused, which were nominated on
the basis of successive disclosure statements, while arresting
them or while effecting the recovery, no proper procedure
under Section 50 of NDPS Act was followed, to ascertain the
recovery, despite the fact that prior information was available
with the police, therefore, it will be a matter of trial, whether
entire procedure adopted in this case subsequent to arrest of
first accused Sukhpal Singh @ Pali is correct or not.
Learned State counsel, on the basis of reply by way of
affidavit of Inspector Jatinder Pal Singh, SHO, Police Station
Dakha, District Ludhiana (Rural), in which aforesaid fact is
not stated, has submitted that apart from Sukhpal Singh @
Pali, who was given notice under Section 50 of NDPS Act, no
other accused was given notice under Section 50 of NDPS Act,
despite there being prior information."
For the sake of brevity, the facts are not reproduced again.
Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that in the
sequence of multiple disclosures of the co-accused, who were
arrested by the police, the name of the petitioner also surfaced in
the disclosure of co-accused Sukhpal Singh, on whose disclosure,
even aforesaid co-accused Daksh Arora was nominated in this
5 of 7
case.
Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that
recovery of 40000 intoxicant tablets was allegedly effected from
the petitioner.
Learned State counsel could not dispute the factual position
that while conducting the search, notice under Section 50 of the
NDPS Act was given only to co-accused Sukhpal Singh @ Pali and
no such notice was given to other accused, despite there being a
prior information on the basis of the disclosures, therefore, it will
be a matter of trial whether a proper procedure was followed or
not..."
Learned counsel submits that the petitioner was nominated in the
FIR on the basis of disclosure statement of co-accused Parveen Kumar, who has
already been granted the concession of regular bail vide order dated 18.02.2022
passed in CRM-M-5514-2022 and two more co-accused namely Honey Sehgal
and Daksh Arora have also been granted the concession of regular bail by this
Court.
Learned State counsel has filed the custody certificate dated
21.03.2022 in the Court today and has not disputed the factual position. As per
the custody certificate, the petitioner is in custody for the last 01 year and 04
days and is not involved in any other case.
After hearing learned counsel for the parties, without commenting
anything on merits of the case and considering the aforesaid facts and
circumstances of the case, this petition is allowed and the petitioner is directed
6 of 7
to be released on regular bail subject to furnishing his bail/surety bonds to the
satisfaction of the trial Court/Illaqa Magistrate/Duty Magistrate, concerned.
[ ARVIND SINGH SANGWAN ]
22.03.2022 JUDGE
vishnu
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No
Whether Reportable : Yes/No
7 of 7
