Salma vs State Of Punjab
2023 Latest Caselaw 14825 P&H

                                                         Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:115200




CRM-M-29965-2023 (O&M)                        -1-         . 2023:PHHC:115200


            IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
                        AT CHANDIGARH

                                                    CRM-M-29965-2023 (O&M)
                                                     Date of decision: 01.09.2023

Salma
                                                                        ...Petitioner

                                   VERSUS

State of Punjab
                                                                     ...Respondent

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASGURPREET SINGH PURI

Present:-   Mr. Munish Gulati, Advocate, for the petitioner.

             Mr. Sarabjit Singh Cheema, DAG, Punjab.

                   ****

JASGURPREET SINGH PURI, J. (Oral)

1. Status report has been filed which is taken on record.

2. The present petition has been filed under Section 438 of the Code

of Criminal Procedure for the grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner in FIR

No.93 dated 25.04.2023, under Sections 21(b) and 29 of NDPS Act, registered

at Police Station Division No.5, District Ludhiana.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner

is a lady of the age of 35 years and she is having no criminal background and is

not involved in any other case and even in the present case the police had

apprehended one co-accused namely Bunty from whom there was a recovery

of 20 grams of heroin which does not fall in the category of commercial

quantity under the NDPS Act and thereafter, the name of the petitioner was

nominated on the basis of disclosure statement made by the aforesaid co-

accused Bunty that he had purchased the same from the present petitioner. He

1 of 3

Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:115200

CRM-M-29965-2023 (O&M) -2- . 2023:PHHC:115200

submitted that the disclosure statement of a co-accused without any other

substantial evidence to connect the accused with the offence is not admissible

in evidence. He also referred to a judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in

Tofan Singh V/s. State of Tamil Nadu' [2021 (1) RCR (Criminal) 1] in this

regard. He also referred to another judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in

State of Haryana Versus Samarth Kumar, 2022 (3) RCR (Criminal) 991 to

contend that the aforesaid plea is not available in a prayer for grant of

anticipatory bail but may be available for a prayer for grant of regular bail but the

aforesaid judgment is distinguishable on the facts of the present case in view of

fact that in the present case the petitioner is a lady and is not involved in any other

case and there is no substantial evidence available with the police even during

investigation to connect the petitioner with the offence and she has already joined

investigation and considering the aforesaid factual position, the order dated

07.06.2023 may be made absolute.

4. Mr. Sarabjit Singh Cheema, DAG, Punjab has submitted that so far

as the joining of the investigation of the petitioner is concerned, he has

instructions to state that she has already joined investigation. However, he

submitted that during the course of investigation it was found that the petitioner

was in constant touch by way of a telephone for large number of times with the

co-accused Bunty and even on the day of the occurrence and therefore, the

petitioner is not entitled for the grant of anticipatory bail.

5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties.

6. The petitioner is a lady of the age of 35 years and she is stated to

be not involved in any other case. The alleged confiscation of heroin from the

co-accused, namely, Bunty does not fall in the category of commercial quantity

2 of 3

Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:115200

CRM-M-29965-2023 (O&M) -3- . 2023:PHHC:115200

and therefore, the bar contained under Section 37 of the NDPS Act is not

applicable in the present case. The mere fact that there are details of phone calls

between the petitioner and the co-accused Bunty from whom there was a

recovery of 20 grams of heroin itself cannot become a ground for denial of bail

to the petitioner especially when the petitioner is having clean antecedents and

the quantity does not fall in the category of commercial quantity and therefore,

the aforesaid judgment in State of Haryana Versus Samarth Kumar (Supra) is

distinguishable in the present case.

7. Consequently, the present petition is allowed and the order dated

07.06.2023 is hereby made absolute.

                                            (JASGURPREET SINGH PURI)
01.09.2023                                          JUDGE
rakesh



             Whether speaking/reasoned          :     Yes/No
             Whether reportable                 :     Yes/No




                                                          Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:115200

                                       3 of 3