Punjab-Haryana High Court
Lakhbir Singh vs State Of Haryana on 19 April, 2024
Author: Jasjit Singh Bedi
Bench: Jasjit Singh Bedi
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:053005
CRM-M-16601-2024 #1# 2024:PHHC:053005
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH.
CRM-M-16601-2024
Date of Decision:-19.04.2024
Lakbir Singh.
......Petitioner.
Vs.
State of Haryana.
......Respondent.
CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASJIT SINGH BEDI
Present:- Mr. Ajay Singh, Advocate for the Petitioner.
Mr. Rajiv Goel, Deputy Advocate General, Haryana.
***
JASJIT SINGH BEDI, J.(ORAL)
The prayer in this petition under Section 438 Cr.PC is for the
grant of anticipatory bail in case FIR No.135 dated 25.05.2023 under
Sections 18(c) of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985
registered at Police Station Udyog Vihar, District Gurugram.
2. The brief facts of the case are that a courier company contacted
the investigating agency that there was suspicion about the contents of a
parcel. A raiding party was constituted and search of the parcel revealed
that two boxes of Dabur Chawanprash were containing 422 grams and 420
grams of Opium each. The sender of the parcel was Lakhbir Singh
(petitioner) and it was to be delivered to one Surinder Singh, resident of
California, USA. Thereafter the instant FIR came to be registered.
3. During the course of investigation it transpired that mobile
number 7657994875 which was mentioned on the parcel stood registered in
1 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:053005
CRM-M-16601-2024 #2# 2024:PHHC:053005
the name of Nishan Singh son of Rasal Singh, the brother of the petitioner.
4. The Counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner has
been falsely implicated in the present case. There was absolutely no
evidence that the petitioner had committed the offence in question. The
mobile number on the parcel belonged to a relative and not the petitioner.
As the petitioner was ready and willing to join the investigation, he was
entitled to the concession of anticipatory bail.
5. The Counsel for the State on the other hand has filed reply
dated 19.04.2024 by way of affidavit of Shiva Archan, HPS, Assistant
Commissioner of Police, Udyog, Gurugram in the court today, which is
taken on record. While referring the said reply, he contends that the parcel
was found to have been despatched by Lakhbir Singh (petitioner) and the
mobile phone number of the brother of the petitioner was found printed on
the invoice. Thus, it was established beyond reasonable doubt that the
petitioner had attempted to send the contraband to one Surinder Singh,
resident of Bakersfield, USA. The custodial interrogation of the petitioner
was certainly necessary to ascertain his modus operandi as also to obtain
information regarding other transactions of a similar nature carried out by
him. Therefore, the petitioner was not entitled to the concession of
anticipatory bail.
6. I have heard learned Counsel for the parties.
7. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of "Sumitha Pradeep
Vs. Arun Kumar C.K. & Anr. 2022 Livelaw (SC) 870'', has held that
merely because custodial interrogation was not required by itself could not
be a ground to grant anticipatory bail. The first and the foremost thing the
Court hearing the anticipatory bail application is to consider is the prima
facie case against the accused. The relevant extract of the judgment is
2 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:053005
CRM-M-16601-2024 #3# 2024:PHHC:053005
reproduced hereinbelow:-
" It may be true, as pointed out by learned counsel appearing for
Respondent No.1, that charge-sheet has already been filed. It will be unfair
to presume on our part that the Investigating Officer does not require
Respondent No.1 for custodial interrogation for the purpose of further
investigation.
Be that as it may, even assuming it a case where Respondent No.1
is not required for custodial interrogation, we are satisfied that the High
Court ought not to have granted discretionary relief of anticipatory bail.
We are dealing with a matter wherein the original complainant
(appellant herein) has come before this Court praying that the anticipatory
bail granted by the High Court to the accused should be cancelled. To put
it in other words, the complainant says that the High Court wrongly
exercised its discretion while granting anticipatory bail to the accused in a
very serious crime like POCSO and, therefore, the order passed by the
High Court granting anticipatory bail to the accused should be quashed
and set aside. In many anticipatory bail matters, we have noticed one
common argument being canvassed that no custodial interrogation is
required and, therefore, anticipatory bail may be granted. There appears
to be a serious misconception of law that if no case for custodial
interrogation is made out by the prosecution, then that alone would be a
good ground to grant anticipatory bail. Custodial interrogation can be
one of the relevant aspects to be considered along with other grounds
while deciding an application seeking anticipatory bail. There may be
many cases in which the custodial interrogation of the accused may not
be required, but that does not mean that the prima facie case against the
accused should be ignored or overlooked and he should be granted
anticipatory bail. The first and foremost thing that the court hearing an
anticipatory bail application should consider is the prima facie case put
up against the accused. Thereafter, the nature of the offence should be
looked into along with the severity of the punishment. Custodial
interrogation can be one of the grounds to decline custodial
interrogation. However, even if custodial interrogation is not required or
necessitated, by itself, cannot be a ground to grant anticipatory bail".
8. A perusal of the FIR and the investigation conducted so far
would show that when the parcel was found to be suspicious and the
investigating agency was called to examine the same, it was found to contain
Opium. The sender was Lakhbir Singh (petitioner) and the mobile number
3 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:053005
CRM-M-16601-2024 #4# 2024:PHHC:053005
of the brother of the petitioner stands printed on the invoice. Therefore,
prima facie the offence stands established. The custodial interrogation of
the petitioner is necessary not only to know about earlier transactions carried
out by him but also to ascertain the identify of Surinder Singh, resident of
California. Therefore, the petitioner is not entitled to the concession of
anticipatory bail.
9. In view of the above, I find no merit in the present petition and
the same stands dismissed.
10. However, the observations made hereinabove are only for the
purposes of deciding this anticipatory bail petition and the Trial Court is free
to adjudicate upon the matter on the basis of the evidence lead before it
uninfluenced by any such observations made.
( JASJIT SINGH BEDI )
JUDGE
April 19, 2024
Vinay
Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No
Whether reportable Yes/No
4 of 4
