Punjab-Haryana High Court
Laddi Singh @ Laddi vs State Of Punjab on 8 April, 2024
2024:PHHC:047338
CRM-M-16013-2024
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
(106)
CRM-M-16013-2024
Date of Decision:-08.04.2024
Laddi Singh@Laddi
......Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab
......Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK JAIN
****
Present: Mr. Bijeshwar Singh Bhalla, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. Siddharth Attri, AAG, Punjab.
****
ALOK JAIN, J. (Oral)
1. The present petition has been filed under Section 438 Cr.P.C.
for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner in case FIR No.91 dated
16.04.2023, under Sections 21-C and 27-A(later on added Section 29) of
Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, registered at Police
Station Maqboolpura, District Police Commissionerate, Amritsar.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner
has been entangled in the present FIR on the basis of disclosure statement
made by one Nirvail Singh from whom recovery of 260 grams heroine,
drug money of Rs.5 lacs and gold armaments were effected and it was
stated in his disclosure statement that he used to purchase the contraband
from the present petition Laddi Singh@Laddi and from one Ravinder
Singh.
Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that apart
2024:PHHC:047338
CRM-M-16013-2024
from the said disclosure statement there is no other evidence available on
record to connect the petitioner with the said incident and he does not even
know Nirvail Singh. He further relies upon the judgment passed by
Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Tofan Singh Vs. State of Tamil Nadu",
2021(4) SCC11 to seek the concession of anticipatory bail. It is also
submitted by leaned counsel for the petitioner that the Hon'ble Supreme
Court of India in the case of Sharik Khan Vs. Narcotics Control Bureau
has reiterated in its order dated 06.03.2024 directing the authorities/officers
that they should comply and abide by the judgment of Tofan Singh's
case(supra) and hence, only on the strength of the disclosure statement the
petitioner cannot be entangled in the present case and the authorities are
required to have some cogent proof apart from the disclosure statement
also.
3. Per contra, learned State counsel has vehemently opposed the
grant of any concession to the petitioner and has relied upon the order
passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in cases State by the
Inspector of Police Vs. B. Ramu, (arising out of SLP(Crl.)No(s).8137 of
2022) and Parwinder Singh @ Parminder Kumar @Vicky Vs. State of
Punjab (arising out of SLP(Crl.)No.12601 of 2023), wherein the Hon'ble
Supreme Court of India has held that in a case of involving recovery of
commercial quantity of narcotic drugs or psychotropic substances, the
Courts would have to mandatorily record their satisfaction in terms of the
riders contained in Section 37 of the NDPS Act.
4. At this stage, counsel for the petitioner has reiterated that in
both the judgments of B.Ramu (Supra) and Parwinder Singh (Supra), the
2024:PHHC:047338
CRM-M-16013-2024
petitioner therein were held in conscious possession of the contraband and
were not entangled on the basis of disclosure statements and reiterates his
stand that the judgment of Tofan Singh (Supra) will come to his rescue.
5. At this stage, learned State counsel submits that since
commercial quantity is involved, therefore, State of Haryana Versus
Samarth Kumar 2022 (3) RCR (Criminal) 991, passed by Hon'ble
Supreme Court of India will come into play and the petitioner cannot be
granted the concession of anticipatory bail.
6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties at length.
Although, the challan against other main accused Nirvail Singh has already
been presented, however, considering the fact that the allegations against
the petitioner is that he is the supplier of the contraband to the main accused
and coupled with the fact that the petitioner has two more cases against
him, one of them being under NDPS Act only. I do not find it to be a case
to grant the extraordinary concession of anticipatory bail to the petitioner.
7. Accordingly, the present petition is dismissed.
(ALOK JAIN)
JUDGE
April 08, 2024
manju
Whether speaking/reasoned:- Yes/No
Whether Reportable:- Yes/No
