Punjab-Haryana High Court
Ashok Kumar vs State Of Haryana on 9 April, 2024
Author: Jasjit Singh Bedi
Bench: Jasjit Singh Bedi
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:048729
2024:PHHC:048729
CRM-M-56774-2023 -1-
(216) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
CRM-M-56774-2023
Date of Decision: 09.04.2024
ASHOK KUMAR
... Petitioner
Versus
STATE OF HARYANA
...Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASJIT SINGH BEDI
Present: Mr. Amit Choudhary, Advocate
for the petitioner.
Mr. Kanwar Sanjiv Kumar, Asstt. A.G., Haryana.
****
JASJIT SINGH BEDI, J.
This 4th petition under Section 438 Cr.P.C. is for the grant of
anticipatory bail in case bearing FIR No.171 dated 13.08.2022 registered
under Sections 21(b) and 27(a) of the NDPS Act, 1985 at Police Station
Bhattu Kalan, District Fatehabad, Haryana.
2. The brief facts of the case are that on 13.08.2022, secret
information was received that Kavita @ Pooja wife of Ashok Kumar
(petitioner) was indulging in the sale of heroin at her residence and if a raid
was conducted, she could be apprehended.
Based on the said information, the residential house of Kavita @
Pooja was raided and the recovery of 35.20 grams of heroin was effected
from her. She disclosed that her husband was indulging in the sale of heroin
and was also a consumer. The heroin recovered from her was bought by her
husband Ashok Kumar and it had been hidden by him which was in her
knowledge and in the absence of her husband she would sell the same.
1 of 3
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:048729
2024:PHHC:048729
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner
has been falsely implicated in the present case. He contends that the name of
the petitioner figured in the disclosure statement of his co-accused namely,
Kavita @ Pooja which has little evidentiary value. Therefore, he was entitled
to the concession of bail even though he was an accused one other case under
the NDPS Act. Reliance is placed on the judgment in the case of Tofan Singh
Versus State of Tamil Nadu, 2020 AIR (Supreme Court) 5592.
4. A status report dated 06.04.2024 by way of an affidavit of
Kulwant Singh, HPS, Deputy Superintendent of Police, Fatehabad has been
filed on behalf of the State by the learned counsel for the State. The same is
taken on record. He contends that the petitioner was a habitual offender and
an accused in 18 cases. Though, he had been acquitted in 8 cases, he was an
under-trial in 10 cases out of which one was under the NDPS Act. Though, no
recovery had been effected from the petitioner in the instant case, the said fact
was of little significance as the recovery had been effected from his wife who
had categorically disclosed that the contraband in question had been
purchased by the petitioner who had hidden the same in their house. He
submits that the petitioner had approached this Court on three occasions and
each time his bail application came to be withdrawn after it had been argued
at some length. There were no change in circumstances entitling the petitioner
to the grant of bail.
5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties.
6. A perusal of record would reveal that the petitioner is an accused
in 18 cases. In 8 cases he stands acquitted whereas in 10 cases he is an under-
2 of 3
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:048729
2024:PHHC:048729
trial. One of the 10 cases pertains to an offence under the NDPS Act as well.
Though no recovery has been effected from the petitioner, the recovery has
been effected from his wife while she was in their house. The statement of the
wife was recorded during the course of investigation in which she stated that
the petitioner had purchased the contraband and had hidden it in the house.
She had found the same and was attempting to sell it. Thus, it is apparent that
merely because no recovery had not been effected from the petitioner would
not exculpate him and entitle him to the grant of the bail in the facts and
circumstances of the present case. Further, the bar under Section 37 of the
NDPS Act would come into play when he is a serial offender. Even otherwise,
his bail application has been argued and withdrawn on three earlier occasions.
No change in circumstances have been pointed out entitling him to the grant
of bail.
7. In view of the aforementioned discussion, I find no merit in the
present petition. Therefore, the same stands dismissed.
8. However, the observations made hereinabove are only for the
purposes of deciding this bail petition and the Trial Court is free to adjudicate
upon the matter on the basis of the evidence led before it uninfluenced by any
such observations made herein.
(JASJIT SINGH BEDI)
JUDGE
09.04.2024
JITESH Whether speaking/reasoned:- Yes/No
Whether reportable:- Yes/No
3 of 3
