Punjab-Haryana High Court
Vikash Gurjar vs State Of Haryana on 12 January, 2023
CRM-M-51260-2022 (O&M) -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
102
CRM-M-51260-2022 (O&M)
Date of decision: 12.01.2023
VIKASH GURJAR
....Petitioner(s)
Versus
STATE OF HARYANA
...Respondent(s)
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMAN CHAUDHARY
*****
Present : Mr. R.S. Mamli, Advocate
for the petitioner.
Mr. Tanuj Sharma, AAG Haryana.
*****
AMAN CHAUDHARY. J.
Present petition has been filed under Section 438 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure for grant of anticipatory bail in FIR No.0822 dated
22.09.2022, under Sections 21 and 29 of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic
Substance Act, 1985 registered at Police Station Sirsa City, District Sirsa.
As per prosecution version, 25 grams of heroin had been recovered
from a youth namely Ajay @ Gholu, who on interrogation disclosed that the
contraband was given to him by Vikash @ Gholu for selling the same and that
they had to distribute the profit thereof.
Learned counsel would contend that the petitioner was not named in
the FIR and he was nominated on basis of the disclosure statements of co-accused
Ajay, who was arrested at the spot, alongwith the alleged contraband. He places
reliance on the judgment in the case of Tofan vs. State of Tamil Nadu, 2020 AIR
(Supreme Court) 5592 to contend that the disclosure statement is inadmissible in
1 of 4
CRM-M-51260-2022 (O&M) -2-
evidence. The petitioner is ready and willing to join the investigation and
cooperate with the investigating agency. Thus, he prays for grant of anticipatory
bail to him.
On advance notice, learned State counsel puts in appearance and
opposes the prayer on the ground that the co-accused, who had named the
petitioner, had stated that the supplier of the contraband recovered from him was
the petitioner and that they had to share the profit thereof. Custodial interrogation
of the petitioner is required in the instant case to find the source of origin and the
entire chain of supply of contraband.
Heard.
It is apposite to make a reference to the order of Hon'ble The
Supreme Court of India in the case of Prabhulal vs. Central Bureau of
Narcotics, wherein the SLP (Crl.) 6722-2022 was dismissed vide order dated
14.12.2022, affirming the order of dismissal of anticipatory bail by Madhya
Pradesh High Court, by observing thus:-
"We have heard learned counsel for the parties. We find no
reason to grant pre-arrest bail to the petitioner as prayed for.
The Special Leave Petition is, accordingly, dismissed.
The interim protection granted by order dated 11.10.2022
stands vacated in view of the dismissal of the special leave
petition.
However, if the petitioner surrenders and apply for regular bail,
the same may be considered by the Trial Court as expeditiously
as possible on its own merits in accordance with law."
Furthermore in the case of State of Haryana vs. Samarth Kumar,
2022 LiveLaw (SC) 622, Hon'ble The Supreme Court of India has held thus:-
2 of 4
CRM-M-51260-2022 (O&M) -3-
"7. The order of the Special Court granting regular bail to the
respondents shows that the said order was passed in pursuance
of the anticipatory bail granted by the High Court. Therefore,
the same cannot be a ground to hold that the present appeals
have become infructuous.
8. In cases of this nature, the respondents may be able to take
advantage of the decision in Tofan Singh vs. State of Tamil
Nadu (supra), perhaps at the time of arguing the regular bail
application or at the time of final hearing after conclusion of
the trial.
9. To grant anticipatory bail in a case of this nature is not really
warranted. Therefore, we are of the view that the High Court
fell into error in granting anticipatory bail to the respondents.
10. In view of the above, the appeals are allowed. The
impugned orders are set aside. As a consequence, the Appellate
-State is entitled to take steps, in accordance with law."
In the case in hand, the name of the petitioner has surfaced based on
the disclosure statements of co-accused, Ajay, who was arrested at the spot and
recovery of the contraband was effected from him. He had categorically disclosed
that the petitioner was the supplier of the said contraband recovered from him and
that they were to share the profit amongst themselves. The sole ground taken by
the petitioner for grant of anticipatory bail in view of the judgment in the case of
Tofan Singh (supra) that the disclosure statement of co-accused is inadmissible,
has no force, as held by Hon'ble The Supreme Court of India in the cases of
Prabhulal and Samarth Kumar (supra). Thus, the allegations against the
petitioner call for a deeper probe, to unearth the modus operandi, source of origin,
chain of supply and also to find out the involvement of other persons therein, so
as to also eradicate the menace of drug proliferating, for which the custodial
3 of 4
CRM-M-51260-2022 (O&M) -4-
interrogation of the petitioner is required. The grant of pre-arrest bail in the
present case shall be detrimental to the investigation.
The stringent provisions as contained in the statute, are to deal with
the drug menace, plaguing the society, as the youth are being led on a path having
deleterious effects, thereby destroying the very social fabric.
Keeping in view the aforesaid, this Court is not inclined to grant the
concession of anticipatory bail to the petitioner. As a sequel thereto, the present
petition being bereft of merit, is hereby dismissed.
(AMAN CHAUDHARY)
JUDGE
January 12, 2023
S.Sharma(syr)
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No
Whether reportable : Yes/No
4 of 4
