Tolu Ram vs State Of Haryana
2023 Latest Caselaw 5680 P&H

                                                       Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:060726




CRM-M-25036 of 2022                                                                      1
                                                                         2023:PHHC: 060726

       IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
                CHANDIGARH


                           CRM-M-25036 of 2022(O&M)
                           Date of Decision: 28.04.2023


Tolu Ram

                                                                     ...Petitioner
Versus


State of Haryana

                                                                  ...Respondent

CORAM :HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KARAMJIT SINGH


Argued by:- Mr. Ashish Nagar, Advocate
           For the petitioner.

             Ms. Harpreet Kaur, AAG Haryana.
                  ***


KARAMJIT SINGH, J.

The present petition has been filed by the petitioner under

Section 438 Cr.P.C. seeking anticipatory bail in case having FIR No. 83

dated 12.02.2022, registered under Sections 22-C, 27, 29, 61 & 85 of

Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act (for brevity, the Act) at

Police Station Civil Line, Sirsa.

The brief facts of the case are that on 12.02.2022 co-accused

Tanurag Manav was apprehended and recovery of commercial quantity of

medical intoxicants was effected from him. Thereafter, said Tanurag Manav

suffered disclosure statement to the effect that he used to supply the drugs

(medical intoxicants) to different persons, including the present petitioner.

Resultantly, the petitioner is named as accused in the present case.

1 of 3

Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:060726

2023:PHHC: 060726

The counsel for the petitioner submits that the FIR in this case

was registered against Tanurag Manav and lateron petitioner has been

falsely impleaded as accused in the present case on the basis of disclosure

statement of co-accused Tanurag Manav. The counsel for the petitioner

further submits that the said disclosure statement of co-accused is not

relevant and its admissibility and veracity will be tested during the trial. The

counsel for the petitioner further submits that except for the alleged

disclosure statement, there is no other evidence to connect the petitioner

with the aforesaid recovery of medical intoxicants which is stated to be

effected from co-accused Tanurag Manav. The counsel for the petitioner

further submits that presently the petitioner is not facing any other case

under the Act. The counsel for the petitioner further submits that the

petitioner is ready to join the investigation with the police. In support of his

contentions, the counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on judgment of

the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Tofan Singh Vs. State of Tamil Nadu

(2021) 4 SCC 1.

The present petition is contested by the State counsel who

submits that commercial quantity of medical intoxicants were recovered

from the possession of co-accused Tanurag Manav. The State counsel

further submits that rigors of Section 37 of the Act are applicable to the

present case. The State counsel further submits that the name of the

petitioner surfaced in the disclosure statement made by Tanurag Manav and

that there is also call detail record with regard to telephone calls exchanged

between the petitioner and Tanurag Manav. It is further submitted that the

custodial interrogation of the petitioner is necessary for proper and effective

2 of 3

Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:060726

2023:PHHC: 060726

investigation of the case. So, prayer is made that present petition be

dismissed.

I have considered the submissions made by counsel for the

parties.

As per the prosecution version medical intoxicants were

recovered from the possession of co-accused Tanurag Manav and the said

recovery falls in commercial quantity as per the provisions of the Act. So,

the embargo provided under Section 37 of the Act is applicable to the

present case. Further, the veracity and admissibility of the disclosure

statement made by co-accused Tanurag Manav against the present petitioner

cannot be considered at this initial stage in the light of law laid down by

Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Haryana Vs. Samarth Kumar, 2022(3)

RCR(Crl.) 991.

In light of the above, this Court is of the view that the petitioner

is not entitled to get interim protection, as the same will amount to

interference in the investigation.

Accordingly, the present petition is hereby dismissed. However,

observations made hereinabove are not to be construed as opinion on the

merits of the case.

                                                      (KARAMJIT SINGH )
28.04.2023                                                JUDGE
Jiten
             Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No
             Whether reportable : Yes/No




                                                       Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:060726

                                     3 of 3