Nachhattar Kaur vs State Of Punjab
2023 Latest Caselaw 3807 P&H

                                                    Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:050580




                                                           2023:PHHC:050580



CRM-M-14157-2023 (O & M)                                                         ::1::


 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH


                      CRM-M-14157-2023 (O & M)
                      Date of decision: 12.04.2023

Nachhattar Kaur                                               ...... Petitioner
           V/s

State of Punjab                                               ...Respondent



CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASJIT SINGH BEDI

Present:     Mr. Shakti Mehta, Advocate,
             for the petitioner.

             Mr. Kirat Singh Sidhu, DAG, Punjab.

                 *****
JASJIT SINGH BEDI, J. (Oral)

The prayer in the present petition under Section 438 Cr.P.C. is

for the grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner in case FIR No.0180 dated

19.08.2022 under Section 15 of the NDPS Act and Section 61-1-14 of the

Excise Act, 1914 registered at Police Station Samana, District Patiala.

2. The brief facts of the case are that while the police party was

on patrolling duty, secret information was received that Guddo Kaur wife of

late Kala Singh was habitual of selling poppy husk as well as illicit liquor by

bringing it from other states. On 19.08.2022 also, she was selling poppy

husk and illicit liquor by walking in the street outside her house. If a raid

was conducted, a heavy quantity of poppy husk and illicit liquor could be

recovered from her possession.

                                 1 of 5

                                                    Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:050580




                                                          2023:PHHC:050580



CRM-M-14157-2023 (O & M)                                                        ::2::

Based on the abovesaid information, an FIR No. 0180 dated

19.08.2022 under Section 15 of the NDPS Act and Section 61-1-14 of the

Excise Act, 1914 at Police Station Samana, District Patiala, came to be

registered against the said Guddo Kaur.

3. Thereafter, a raid was conducted at the house of Guddo Kaur.

When the accused-Guddo Kaur saw the police party, she became perplexed

and ran away after throwing a heavy transparent polythene, held in her hand,

in the street. On inspection, the polythene packet was found to contain 1

kilo 500 grams of poppy husk. The search of the house of the Guddo Kaur

yielded a plastic drum containing illicit liquor. On measuring, it came to be

approximately 93 bottles of illicit liquor.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the

petitioner has no role to play in the alleged incident. In fact, her name was

Nachhattar Kaur wife of late Resham Singh and not Guddo Kaur wife of late

Kala Singh as has been mentioned in the FIR. An attempt was being made to

falsely implicate the petitioner in the present case. Since the recovery

already stood effected and there was a doubt regarding the identity of the

accused, she was entitled to the grant of concession of anticipatory bail,

moreso, as she was a lady.

5. The learned counsel for the State, on the other hand, has filed a

reply dated 12.04.2023 by way of affidavit of Saurav Jindal, PPS,

Superintendent of Police, Sub Division Samana, District Samana. While

referring to the aforesaid reply, he contends that during the course of

investigation, the statement of Baldev Singh Nambardar son of Pritam Singh

was recorded, who stated that Nachhattar Kaur wife of Resham Singh was a

2 of 5

Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:050580

2023:PHHC:050580

CRM-M-14157-2023 (O & M) ::3::

permanent resident of their village Marauri whose husband Resham Singh

@ Kala had expired about 09 years ago. Nachhattar Kaur was also known

by her nick name Guddo and her husband was called Kala in the village. A

similar statement was recorded of one Isma Ram, a former Sarpanch of the

said village. He, thus, contends that there is absolutely no doubt about the

fact that the petitioner-Nachhattar Kaur is also known as Guddo Kaur wife

of Resham Singh @ Kala. Since the recovery of illicit liquor has been

effected from the house of the petitioner and she was seen throwing a plastic

bag containing poppy husk, she was not entitled to the grant of anticipatory

bail.

6. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length.

7. The primary ground taken is that the petitioner was in fact,

Nachattar Kaur wife of late Sh. Resham Singh and not Guddo Kaur has has

been stated in the FIR. The said argument has been clearly negated during

the course of investigation as the statements of Baldev Singh Nambardar and

Ex-Sarpanch Isma Ram of village Marauri have been recorded to the effect

that Nachhattar Kaur was also named as Guddo Kaur in the village and her

husband late Resham Singh was also known as Kala.

8. Additionally, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of

'Sumitha Pradeep Vs. Arun Kumar C.K. & Anr. 2022(4) RCR (Criminal)

977' has held that merely because custodial interrogation was not required

by itself could not be a ground to grant anticipatory bail. The first and the

foremost thing the Court hearing the anticipatory bail application is to

consider is the prima facie case against the accused. The relevant extract of

the judgment is reproduced hereinbelow:-

3 of 5

Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:050580

2023:PHHC:050580

CRM-M-14157-2023 (O & M) ::4::

"It may be true, as pointed out by learned counsel appearing for Respondent No.1, that charge-sheet has already been filed. It will be unfair to presume on our part that the Investigating Officer does not require Respondent No.1 for custodial interrogation for the purpose of further investigation.

Be that as it may, even assuming it a case where Respondent No.1 is not required for custodial interrogation, we are satisfied that the High Court ought not to have granted discretionary relief of anticipatory bail.

We are dealing with a matter wherein the original complainant (appellant herein) has come before this Court praying that the anticipatory bail granted by the High Court to the accused should be cancelled. To put it in other words, the complainant says that the High Court wrongly exercised its discretion while granting anticipatory bail to the accused in a very serious crime like POCSO and, therefore, the order passed by the High Court granting anticipatory bail to the accused should be quashed and set aside. In many anticipatory bail matters, we have noticed one common argument being canvassed that no custodial interrogation is required and, therefore, anticipatory bail may be granted. There appears to be a serious misconception of law that if no case for custodial interrogation is made out by the prosecution, then that alone would be a good ground to grant anticipatory bail. Custodial interrogation can be one of the relevant aspects to be considered along with other grounds while deciding an application seeking anticipatory bail. There may be many cases in which the custodial interrogation of the accused may not be required, but that does not mean that the prima facie case against the accused should be ignored or overlooked and he should be granted anticipatory bail. The first and foremost thing that the court hearing an anticipatory bail application

4 of 5

Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:050580

2023:PHHC:050580

CRM-M-14157-2023 (O & M) ::5::

should consider is the prima facie case put up against the accused. Thereafter, the nature of the offence should be looked into along with the severity of the punishment. Custodial interrogation can be one of the grounds to decline custodial interrogation. However, even if custodial interrogation is not required or necessitated, by itself, cannot be a ground to grant anticipatory bail."

9. In view of the aforementioned discussion and the serious nature

of the allegations levelled against the petitioner, no case for the grant of

anticipatory bail is made out. The present petition is, therefore, dismissed.

( JASJIT SINGH BEDI) JUDGE April 12, 2023 sukhpreet Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/No

Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:050580

5 of 5