Chand Singh Alias Golu vs State Of Punjab
2022 Latest Caselaw 10888 P&H

              IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
                         AT CHANDIGARH

                                                 CRM-M-4430-2022 (O&M)
                                                 Date of Decision:- 9.9.2022


   Chand Singh @ Golu                                                   ...Petitioner

                                      Versus

   State of Punjab                                                    ...Respondent


   CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GURVINDER SINGH GILL

   Present:     Ms. Manpreet Ghuman, Advocate for the petitioner.

                Mr. Sidharth Attri, AAG, Punjab
                assisted by ASI Manjit

                *****

   GURVINDER SINGH GILL, J.

1. The petitioner seeks grant of regular bail in a case registered vide FIR No.

25 dated 10.6.2021 under Sections 21, 22 (c), 25, 29 of the Narcotic Drugs

and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 at Police Station Mehal Kallan,

District Barnala.

2. The FIR in question was lodged on the basis of secret information received

by a police party on 10.6.2021 during the course of patrolling, to the effect

that Arshdeep Singh and Amritpal Singh along with their accomplices had

formed a gang for the sale of 'heroin' and are also in contact with drugs

smugglers and gangsters, who are otherwise confined in jail. The

information was further to the effect that they have recently received a huge

consignment of 'heroin' and were proceeding in a Swift Dzire car and a

motorcycle on link road of Mehal Kalan.

                                        1 of 6

                                    2                    CRM-M-4430-2022 (O&M)

3. Pursuant to receipt of said information, the police swung into action and

intensified its search for the said persons. Two persons were seen coming

from Kalal Bajra side along the bank of a drain on a motorcycle. The said

persons, upon noticing the police party, tried to turn back. The person sitting

on the pillion seat was carrying a black coloured bag and who alighted from

the motorcycle and started running towards the drain. In the said process,

one plastic polythene bag containing a white coloured material fell down.

The said persons started picking up the said polythene bag but was

apprehended by the police. The person, who was driving the motorcycle

managed to escape. Upon enquiry, the said person disclosed the name as

Amritpal Singh. Said Amritpal Singh disclosed that the person who had

escaped from the spot was Arshdeep Singh. Upon checking the polythene

bag which had fallen down, the same was found to contain 350 grams of

intoxicant powder.

4. It is further the case of prosecution that pursuant to disclosure statements of

Amritpal Singh as well as upon other evidence collected during

investigation, Gurdip Singh @ Manna was arrested by the police on

11.6.2021. Further, on the basis of disclosure statement of Amritpal Singh

made on 14.6.2021, Iqbal Singh @ Babbu, Vishesh Kumar @ Vishesh and

Parvinder Singh @ Tiger were also nominated as accused.

5. The aforesaid Iqbal Singh was arrested on 15.6.2021 and 30 grams of

intoxicant powder was recovered pursuant to his disclosure statement.

6. Arshdeep Singh was arrested on 23.6.2021 on the basis of production

warrants. Arshdeep Singh disclosed that Vijay Singh @ Sony was also

associated with the accused. Said Vijay Singh @ Sony was arrested on

2 of 6

3 CRM-M-4430-2022 (O&M)

24.6.2021 and pursuant to disclosure made by Vijay Singh @ Sony, he got

recovered 380 grams of 'heroin' which had been kept concealed by him.

7. It is further the case of prosecution that Vijay Singh @ Sony in his

disclosure statement dated 25.6.2021 nominated Rajan @ Sohan Singh and

Chand Singh @ Golu (petitioner). It is the case of prosecution that Chand

Singh @ Golu (petitioner) was arrested on 30.6.2021 and from his

possession 50 grams of 'heroin' and another 825 loose intoxicant tablets (in

broken condition) were recovered, which upon chemical analysis were found

to contain 'Tramadol'.

8. The learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently argued that the

petitioner, as per the case of prosecution, has been arrested pursuant to a

chain of disclosure statements and that no credibility can be attached to the

disclosure statements of co-accused. The learned counsel has further

submitted that even if the case for the prosecution regarding recovery of

'heroin' and some intoxicant tablets is taken to be correct, still the case, at

best, would be a case of recovery of 'non-commercial' quantity inasmuch as

the 'heroin' admittedly was found to weigh 50 grams only which is 'non-

commercial' quantity and that the weight of the 825 broken loose tablets

cannot be ascertained as it cannot be said that all the broken pieces of tablets

were equal in shape and size and weight.

9. On the other hand, learned State counsel has submitted that the present case

is not a case of nominating the petitioner as an accused on the basis of

disclosure statement simpliciter but is a case where the petitioner himself

was found in possession of 'heroin' as well as 'Tramadol' and that the

3 of 6

4 CRM-M-4430-2022 (O&M)

Tramadol recovered would fall in the category of 'non-commercial' quantity,

which disentitles the petitioner for grant of bail.

10. This Court has considered the rival submissions.

11. It is no doubt correct that a disclosure statement ipso facto is not a

substantive piece of evidence and that the same would be required to be

corroborated and substantiated by other convincing evidence. In the present

case, the very fact that when the petitioner was apprehended, he was found

in possession of two types of contrabands i.e. 'heroin' and 'Tramadol',

substantiates the disclosure statement regarding involvement of the

petitioner.

12. Another contention of the petitioner is that since the recovered tablets were

in broken condition and the broken pieces would be of different sizes and

weight, therefore, the total weight of the recovered tablets cannot be

ascertained. However, this Court is unable to agree with the aforesaid

contention. A perusal of the reply filed by the State would show that it is not

a case that all the 825 tablets were broken. The same would be evident from

the fact that the description of the said tablets in the FSL report clearly

shows that all the 825 tablets were not in broken condition. The relevant

extract from the said FSL report reads as follows :-

6. Articles Received : One parcel alleged to be seized from S/v Chand Singh @ Golu, sealed with one seal of 'SAD' and alleged to contain Intoxicating Tablets.

Seal on the parcel was found intact and tallied with the specimen seal impression.

On opening the parcel was found to contain eight hundred and twenty five (825) white coloured loose (some broken) tablets

Average weight = 404. 23 mg/tablet

4 of 6

5 CRM-M-4430-2022 (O&M)

7. Purpose of reference : Analysis and Report.

8. Identification & Tests :

        Ingredient present         Average quantity of ingredient present in the parcel
        Tramadol Hydrochloride                        97.39 mg/tablet

13. Since only some of the tablets were broken, the remaining were apparently

unbroken and the average weight of each tablet has been defined as 404.23

mg, therefore, the total weight of 825 tablets would work out to about 333

grams, which would fall in the category of 'commercial quantity'.

Consequently, the fetters imposed by Section 37 of the Act will come into

play in the matter of grant of bail.

14. There is nothing on record to suggest that the petitioner has been falsely

implicated. Hon'ble Apex Court in a judgment i.e. 2020(1) RCR(Criminal)

818 State of Kerala vs. Rajesh Kumar has reiterated the legal position as

regards the limitations imposed by Section 37 of the Act and has further held

that a liberal approach in matters of bail in offences under the NDPS Act is

uncalled for.

15. Hon'ble Supreme Court in a very recent judgment Narcotics Control Bureau

vs. Mohit Aggarwal, 2022(3) RCR(Criminal) 985, while deciding an appeal

filed by Narcotics Control Bureau challenging grant of bail to an accused by

the High Court, cancelled the bail while reiterating the view that provisions

of Section 37 of the Act have to be strictly complied with and that mere

length of custody cannot be a consideration for grant of bail. Paras 14 and 18

of the said judgment read as follows :-

"14. To sum up, the expression "reasonable grounds" used in clause (b) of Sub-Section (1) of Section 37 would mean credible, plausible and grounds for the Court to

5 of 6

6 CRM-M-4430-2022 (O&M)

believe that the accused person is not guilty of the alleged offence. For arriving at any such conclusion, such facts and circumstances must exist in a case that can persuade the Court to believe that the accused person would not have committed such an offence. Dove-tailed with the aforesaid satisfaction is an additional consideration that the accused person is unlikely to commit any offence while on bail.

15. xxx xxx xxx

16. xxx xxx xxx

17. xxx xxx xxx

18. In our opinion the narrow parameters of bail available under Section 37 of the Act, have not been satisfied in the facts of the instant case. At this stage, it is not safe to conclude that the respondent has successfully demonstrated that there are reasonable grounds to believe that he is not guilty of the offence alleged against him, for him to have been admitted to bail. The length of the period of his custody or the fact that the charge-sheet has been filed and the trial has commenced are by themselves not considerations that can be treated as persuasive grounds for granting relief to the respondent under Section 37 of the NDPS Act."

(emphasis supplied)

16. There is nothing on record at this stage from which it could be inferred that

the petitioner is not guilty of the offence in question or that in case released

on bail, he is not likely to indulge in such offences again. Finding no merit

in the petition, the same is hereby dismissed.

    9.9.2022                                                   (Gurvinder Singh Gill)
    kamal                                                                 Judge
                    Whether speaking /reasoned           Yes / No
                    Whether Reportable                   Yes / No




                                              6 of 6