Punjab-Haryana High Court
Rajesh Kumar Alias Rajan vs State Of Haryana on 15 November, 2022
CRM-M-39159-2022 -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
(235)
CRM-M-39159-2022
Date of decision: - 15.11.2022
Rajesh Kumar alias Rajan
....Petitioner
Versus
State of Haryana
.....Respondent
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIKAS BAHL
Present:- Mr. R.S. Rai, Senior Advocate
with Mr. Gautam Dutt, Advocate,
for the petitioner.
Mr. Praveen Bhadu, AAG, Haryana.
****
VIKAS BAHL, J. (ORAL)
This is the first petition under Section 439 Cr.P.C. to grant
regular bail to the petitioner in FIR No.321 dated 07.07.2022, registered
under Sections 22-C and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic
Substances Act, 1985, at Police Station Kheri Pull, District Faridabad.
2. Learned Senior counsel for the petitioner has submitted that
in the present case, neither the petitioner was apprehended at the spot nor
any recovery has been effected from him and the alleged recovery of 11
injections of Buprenorphine has been effected from co-accused Sonu and
it is solely on the basis of disclosure statement of the said Sonu that the
petitioner is sought to be implicated in the present case. It is further
submitted that the investigation is complete and the challan has been
1 of 6
presented and other than the said disclosure statement, there is no other
material against the present petitioner, thus, he deserves the concession of
regular bail. In support of his arguments, learned counsel for the
petitioner has placed reliance upon a judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme
Court in case titled as "Tofan Singh Vs. State of Tamil Nadu", reported
as 2021(4) SCC 1 and judgment passed in CRM-M-12051-2020, by a Co-
ordinate Bench of this Court dated 17.06.2020 titled as "Mewa Singh Vs.
State of Punjab". It is argued that even as per the said disclosure
statement, it has surfaced that initially the said Sonu used to buy
injections from the present petitioner, but subsequently had started
purchasing from one Uttam Singh alias Tinku and the last 50 injections
were purchased by said Sonu from Uttam Singh alias Tinku. It is further
argued that the said Uttam Singh alias Tinku has been granted the
concession of regular bail by the Additional Sessions Judge, Faridabad,
vide order dated 21.10.2022 and that the case of the present petitioner is
on a higher footing than that of the said Uttam Singh alias Tinku. It is
stated that there are 19 prosecution witnesses, none of whom have been
examined, thus, the trial is likely to take time and the petitioner is not
involved in any other case.
3. Learned State counsel, on the other hand, has opposed the
present petition for regular bail and has submitted that as per the
disclosure statement of said Sonu, in addition to the fact that 50 injections
were purchased by Sonu from the said Uttam Singh alias Tinku, it has
also been mentioned that around 25 injections were purchased from the
present petitioner. The other facts, however, have not been disputed by
2 of 6
learned State counsel.
4. This Court has heard learned counsel for the parties and has
gone through the paper-book.
5. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Tofan Singh's case (supra),
had observed as under:-
"152. Thus, to arrive at the conclusion that a
confessional statement made before an officer designated under
Section 42 or Section 53 can be the basis to convict a person
under the NDPS Act, without any non obstante clause doing
away with Section 25 of the Evidence Act, and without any
safeguards, would be a direct infringement of the constitutional
guarantees contained in Articles 14, 20(3) and 21 of the
Constitution of India."
6. The Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Mewa Singh' case
(supra) has held as under: -
"1. The petitioner has approached this Court seeking grant
of anticipatory bail in a case registered against him vide FIR No.133
dated 24.11.2019 under Section 21 NDPS Act Police Station Lohian,
District Jalandhar.
2. Reply way of affidavit of Mr. Piara Singh, PPS, Deputy
Superintendent of Police, Sub-Division Shahkot, District Jalandhar
(Rural) on behalf of the respondent-State has been filed, which is taken
on record.
3. The allegations in nut-shell are that Bachittar Singh was
found in possession of 1.7 Kgs. 'Heroin'. During the course of
interrogation, he made a disclosure statement nominating the
petitioner as an accused wherein he stated that the contraband in
question had been supplied by the petitioner.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that he
has falsely been implicated in the present case and was never arrested
at the spot and that the alleged disclosure statement is not worth
credence.
5. Opposing the petition, learned State counsel has
submitted that keeping in view the antecedents of the petitioner his
3 of 6
complicity is clearly evident inasmuch as he stands involved in three
other cases i.e. FIR No.43 dated 2.4.2016 under Sections 15, 21, 22
NDPS Act, Police Station Sultanpur Lodhi; FIR No.5 dated 5.1.2020
under Sections 307, 186, 332, 353, 224, 225, 427, 148, 149 IPC,
Police Station Sultanpur Lodhi & FIR No.193 dated 193 dated
22.11.2019 under Sections 15, 21, 25, 29 NDPS Act, Police Station
Kartarpur.
6. I have considered rival submissions addressed before
this Court.
7. It is not disputed that the petitioner was never
apprehended at the spot and that the only evidence against him is in
the shape of disclosure statement, the admissibility and veracity of
which would be tested during the course of trial. As regards the other
three cases which are stated to be pending against the petitioner, the
learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that even in the said
cases he has been falsely implicated and was never arrested at the spot
and has been granted anticipatory bail in all three cases.
8. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case
and that it is a case where the petitioner has been nominated solely on
the basis of disclosure statement, the petition is accepted and it is
ordered that the petitioner in the event of his arrest shall be released
on bail subject to his furnishing personal bonds and surety bonds to
the satisfaction of Arresting/Investigating Officer. However, the
petitioner shall join the investigation as and when called upon to do so
and cooperate with the Arresting/Investigating Officer and shall also
abide by the conditions as provided under Section 438 (2) Cr.P.C.
9. It is however clarified that in case the petitioner does
not join investigation, it shall be open to the investigating
agency/prosecution to move for cancellation of his bail."
7. In the present case, no recovery has been effected from the
present petitioner. The alleged recovery of 11 injections of Buprenorphine
has been effected from Sonu and the petitioner is sought to be implicated
on the basis of disclosure statement of said Sonu. Even as per the
disclosure statement of said Sonu, it has been stated that the last 50
injections were purchased by him from Uttam Singh @ Tinku and the said
4 of 6
Uttam Singh @ Tinku has already been granted the concession of regular
bail by the Additional Sessions Judge, Faridabad vide order dated
21.10.2022. The case of the present petitioner is on a higher footing than
that of the said Uttam Singh @ Tinku. The investigation is complete and
no material other than the disclosure statement has been pointed out
against the present petitioner. Moreover, there are 19 prosecution
witnesses, none of whom have been examined, thus, the trial is likely to
take time.
8. Keeping in view the above-said facts and circumstances as
well as in view of the law laid down in the above-said judgments, the
present petition is allowed and the petitioner is directed to be released on
regular bail on his furnishing bail/surety bonds to the satisfaction of the
concerned trial Court/Duty Magistrate and subject to him not being
required in any other case. The petitioner shall also abide by the
following conditions:-
1. The petitioner will not tamper with the evidence during the
trial.
2. The petitioner will not pressurize / intimidate the prosecution
witness(s).
3. The petitioner will appear before the trial Court on the date
fixed, unless personal presence is exempted.
4. The petitioner shall not commit an offence similar to the
offence of which he is accused of, or for commission of
which he is suspected.
5. The petitioner shall not directly or indirectly make any
inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with
the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing
such facts to the Court or to any police officer or tamper with
5 of 6
the evidence.
9. In case of breach of any of the above conditions, the
prosecution shall be at liberty to move an application for cancellation of
bail before this Court.
10. However, nothing stated above shall be construed as a final
expression of opinion on the merits of the case and the trial Court would
proceed independently of the observations made in the present case which
are only for the purpose of adjudicating the present bail petition.
( VIKAS BAHL )
November 15, 2022 JUDGE
naresh.k
Whether reasoned/speaking? Yes/No
Whether reportable? Yes/No
6 of 6
