Punjab-Haryana High Court
Surinder @ Laddi vs State Of Punjab on 9 April, 2024
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:047862
2024:PHHC:047862
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
102 CRM-M-17546-2024
Date of Decision : April 09, 2024
SURINDER @ LADDI -PETITIONER
V/S
STATE OF PUNJAB -RESPONDENT
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KULDEEP TIWARI
Present: Mr. Kamal Narula, Advocate
for the petitioner.
Mr. Pardeep Bajaj, D.A.G., Punjab.
***
KULDEEP TIWARI, J. (ORAL)
1. Through the instant petition, as instituted under Section 438 of the
Cr.P.C., the petitioner seeks the concession of anticipatory bail, in FIR No.12
dated 12.02.2024, under Section 21 of the N.D.P.S. Act, 1985 (Section 29 of
the N.D.P.S. Act, 1985, added subsequently) registered at P.S. Zira, District
Ferozepur.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner
has no concern whatsoever with the alleged recovery of 25 grams of heroin,
which indeed has been effected from co-accused Dalvir Singh. Moreover, when
the allegedly recovered heroin falls in the category of "non-commercial
quantity", therefore, the statutory bar as engrafted in Section 37 of the N.D.P.S.
Act, 1985, is not applicable in the present case. The name of the petitioner
surfaced for the first time ever only in the disclosure statement, as suffered by
the co-accused Dalvir Singh, during the course of investigation, whereupon, he
has been arrayed as an accused in the instant FIR. He contests the evidentiary
vigor of the said disclosure statement, on the ground that, the same was suffered
by the co-accused (supra) while being in police custody.
3. The record reveals that the petitioner has been nominated as an
1 of 2
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:047862
CRM-M-17546-2024 2 2024:PHHC:047862
accused under Section 29 of the N.D.P.S. Act, 1985, on the basis of DDR
No.32 dated 14.02.2024. It further erupts from the record that the petitioner is
involved in four other criminal cases, i.e. two cases under the Excise Act and
two cases under the N.D.P.S. Act.
4. Though the alleged recovery of heroin, as effected from the co-
accused (supra), undisputedly falls in the category of "non-commercial
quantity", however, the hereinabove extracted criminal antecedents of the
petitioner impel this Court to draw an inference that the petitioner is a habitual
offender, who indulges in trade of narcotics time and again. Now, insofar as
evidentiary worth of the disclosure statement of co-accused (supra) is
concerned, the same can only be considered and ascertained at the appropriate
stage of trial.
5. Therefore, this Court does not deem it a fit case to grant the
extraordinary relief of anticipatory bail to the petitioner. To reach at this
conclusion, this Court also garners strength from the judgment rendered by the
Hon'ble Supreme Court, in case titled as "The State of Haryana Versus
Samarth Kumar", 2022 (3) RCR (Criminal) 991. Consequently, the asked for
relief of anticipatory bail is declined to the petitioner and the petition is
accordingly dismissed.
6. However, anything observed hereinabove shall neither be
construed to have any bearing on the outcome of the trial, nor the trial Court
concerned shall be influenced by any of the observations recorded herein.
(KULDEEP TIWARI)
April 09, 2024 JUDGE
devinder
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No
Whether Reportable : Yes/No
2 of 2
