Punjab-Haryana High Court
Ramesh Bijarnia @ Ramesh Kumar vs State Of Haryana on 20 April, 2023
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:056850
CRM-M-44644-2022 -1- 2023:PHHC:056850
213 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CRM-M-44644-2022
Date of Decision: 20.04.2023
Ramesh Bijarnia @ Ramesh Kumar ..... Petitioner
Versus
State of Haryana .......Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BHARDWAJ
Present: Mr. Parminder Singh Sekhon, Advocate, for the petitioner.
Mr. B.S. Virk, Deputy Advocate General, Haryana.
Rajesh Bhardwaj, J.
Prayer in the present petition is for the grant of regular bail to
the petitioner in a case FIR No.41 dated 22.02.2021, registered under
Section 22-C, 27-A of NDPS Act, at Police Station Sadar Fatehabad,
District Fatehabad.
As per facts of the case, the Police party while on checking of
narcotic substances conducted a barricading on NH-9 Sirsa-Fatehabad Road
on 22.02.2021. They spotted two persons coming on motorcycle and they
were stopped. On asking, the person driving the motorcycle disclosed his
name as Suresh Kumar and the other riding pillion disclosed his name as
Sandeep Kumar. The pillion rider, namely Sandeep Kumar was holding a
black coloured polythene in his hands. On suspicion, they were given offer
under Section 50 of NDPS Act for checking of the same. On their consent,
Sub Divisional Officer was called and search was conducted in his presence.
On checking of the bag, recovery of 45 strips (total 450 tablets) of
Tramadol Hydrochloride 100 mg SR tablets, having weight 201.06 grams;
and 123 strips (total 984 capsules) of Superdol-Plus Tramadol
Hydrochloride, Paracetamol and Dicyclomine Hydrochloride Capsules
1 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:056850
CRM-M-44644-2022 -2- 2023:PHHC:056850
having weight 793.35 grams was effected. The accused failed to show any
licence regarding possession of the intoxicant tablets recovered and thus, a
case under Sections 22-C/61/85 of NDPS Act was registered and the
investigation commenced. Both the accused were arrested on the spot and
they disclosed about another accused, namely, Chunni Ram @ Sandeep
from home they purchased these intoxicant tablets. Chunni Ram @ Sandeep
was arrested on 12.03.2021 and he suffered disclosure statement that he
purchased the recovered contraband from Ramesh Bijarnia i.e. the
petitioner. Resultantly the petitioner was arrested on 18.05.2022. He
approached the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fatehabad for
grant of bail, who, after hearing the parties, declined the same vide order
dated 27.07.2022. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner has approached this
Court by way of filing the present petition for grant of bail.
It has been vehemently contended by learned counsel for the
petitioner that the petitioner has been falsely and frivolously implicated in
the present case. He has submitted that neither the petitioner was arrested on
the spot nor recovery of the prohibited drugs, was effected from him. He
submits that co-accused, namely, Sandeep Kumar and Suresh Kumar were
arrested by the Police on the spot and from their custody the intoxicating
tablets were recovered. He submits that during the investigation they made
disclosure about co-accused Chunni Ram @ Sandeep, from whom both of
them purchased the recovered contraband. He submits that it is on the
disclosure statement of Chunni Ram @ Sandeep, stated that he purchased
these contraband from the petitioner i.e. Ramesh Bijarnia and hence, the
petitioner was arrested in this case. He submits that the disclosure statement
made by the co-accused is not an admissible evidence and thus false
2 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:056850
CRM-M-44644-2022 -3- 2023:PHHC:056850
implication of the petitioner is writ large. He submits that the petitioner is
behind bars since the date of his arrest and the investigation in this case is
already complete and charges are also framed. He relies upon the judgment
of this Court in Ramesh Kumar vs. State of Haryana, passed in CRM-M-
34582-2022 dated 19.01.2023 and judgment of Rajasthan High Court in
Ramesh Kumar vs. State of Rajasthan, passed in SB Crl. Misc Bail
Application No.5903-2020 dated 06.07.2020, whereby the petitioner was
granted bail in similar cases. He submits that in view of the abovesaid
orders granting bail to the petitioner, he deserves to be granted bail in this
case as well.
On the other hand, learned State counsel has vehemently
opposed the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner. He has
submitted that the accused, namely, Sandeep Kumar and Suresh Kumar
were arrested on the spot and contraband recovered from them constitutes a
commercial quantity. It is submitted that during the investigation, both the
accused disclosed about co-accused Chunni Ram @ Sandeep from whom
they purchased the recovered contraband. He submits that thereafter during
the interrogation of Chunni Ram, it was revealed that he had purchased the
contraband from the petitioner. He submits that the petitioner is a habitual
offender and besides this case, he is facing prosecution in two more cases
for the similar nature, out of which one is registered in Rajasthan. He
submits that recovered contraband falls in the category of commercial
quantity and statutory provisions of Section 37 of NDPS Act are staightway
attracted in this case. He submits that though the petitioner has been granted
bail in other two cases, however, the facts and circumstances of the same
are distinguishable from the facts of the present case, as application of
3 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:056850
CRM-M-44644-2022 -4- 2023:PHHC:056850
Section 37 of NDPS Act, has not been considered in that case. He submits
that both the judgments relied upon by the petitioners are not applicable in
the present case. He has vehemently contented that the petitioner is the main
supplier of the contraband recovered from the co-accused. He submits that
during the investigation, the petitioner disclosed that he purchased the
contraband from one unknown supplier for Rs.35,000/- and sold the same to
co-accused Chunni Ram @ Sandeep for Rs.45,000/- and spent the profit
earned by him. On instructions, he submits that in all there are 25
prosecution witnesses, out of which 3 witnesses have been examined as on
date and hence, granting bail to the petitioner may hamper the trial of the
case.
Heard.
After hearing learned counsel for the parties and perusing the
record, it is apparent that the petitioner though was not arrested on the spot,
however, his complicity has been surfaced during the investigation of the
co-accused. It has been disclosed that commercial quantity, which was
recovered from Sandeep Kumar and Suresh Kumar, was sold by the
petitioner to another accused-Chunni Ram @ Sandeep, who disclosed about
the petitioner having sold the same to him. Chunni Ram @ Sandeep further
sold the same to Sandeep Kumar and Suresh Kumar. Evidently, the
contraband recovered falls in the category of commercial quantity and thus,
the provisions of Section 37 NDPS Act are attracted in the present case.
Though the petitioner has relied upon the judgments granting him bail in
other FIRs in which he is already facing prosecution, but this Court finds
that same are distinguishable from the present case for the reason that the
satisfaction to be drawn by the Court under Section 37(1)(b)(ii) of the
4 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:056850
CRM-M-44644-2022 -5- 2023:PHHC:056850
NDPS Act have not been discussed in those cases. As submitted before this
Court, the petitioner is facing prosecution in two more cases of similar
nature, thus this Court does not find any ground for its satisfaction under
Section 37(1)(b)(ii) of the NDPS Act. Out of total 25 prosecution witnesses,
3 witnesses have been examined so far.
Resultantly, the present petition is hereby dismissed being
devoid of any merit.
Nothing said herein shall be treated as an expression of opinion
on the merits of the case.
(RAJESH BHARDWAJ)
20.04.2023 JUDGE
sharmila Whether Speaking/Reasoned : Yes/No
Whether Reportable : Yes/No
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:056850
5 of 5
