Satnam Singh @ Sattu vs State Of Haryana
2023 Latest Caselaw 5682 P&H

                                                       Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:060745




CRM-M-1810 of 2023                                                                       1
                                                                         2023:PHHC: 060745

       IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
                CHANDIGARH


                           CRM-M-1810 of 2023(O&M)
                           Date of Decision: 28.04.2023


Satnam Singh @ Sattu

                                                                     ...Petitioner
Versus


State of Haryana

                                                                  ...Respondent

CORAM :HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KARAMJIT SINGH


Argued by:- Mr. J.S. Thind, Advocate
           For the petitioner.

             Mr. Naveen Sheoran, DAG 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 19.02.2020, registered under Sections 22-C, 61 & 85 of Narcotic

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

Station Rania, District Sirsa.

The brief facts of the case are that co-accused Kulwinder Singh

was apprehended and 5000 capsules of Ridlay Parvioren-Spas Tramadol

were recovered from him by the police on 19.02.2020. The said capsules

were in the shape of strips each containing 10 capsules having batch number,

manufacturing date and expiry date. Thereafter, said Kulwinder Singh made

disclosure statement that he purchased the aforesaid capsules from the

1 of 3

Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:060745

2023:PHHC: 060745

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

present case.

The counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has

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

disclosure statement of co-accused Kulwinder Singh. 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 in the shape of call detail

record or otherwise to connect the petitioner with the aforesaid recovery of

5000 capsules which is stated to be effected from co-accused Kulwinder

Singh. 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 Kulwinder Singh. 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 Kulwinder Singh. It

is further submitted that the custodial interrogation of the petitioner is

necessary for proper and effective investigation of the case. So, prayer is

made that present petition be dismissed.

I have considered the submissions made by counsel for the

parties.

2 of 3

Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:060745

2023:PHHC: 060745

As per the prosecution version, 5000 capsules having medical

intoxicants were recovered from the possession of co-accused Kulwinder

Singh 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 attracted to the present case. Further, the relevancy and admissibility of

the disclosure statement made by co-accused Kulwinder Singh 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:060745

                                     3 of 3