Punjab-Haryana High Court
Sukhminder Singh @ Sukhvinder Singh vs State Of Haryana And Anr on 29 April, 2024
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:057574
2024:PHHC:057574
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
101 CRM-M-22475-2018
Date of Decision : April 29, 2024
SUKHMINDER SINGH @ SUKHVINDER SINGH
.....Petitioner
VERSUS
STATE OF HARYANA AND ANR
.....Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KULDEEP TIWARI
Present: Mr. Aditya Sanghi, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. Bhupender Singh, DAG, Haryana.
Mr. Rajiv Sharma, Advocate for respondent No.2.
KULDEEP TIWARI, J. (Oral)
1. Through the instant petition filed under Section 438 Cr.P.C.,
prayer is made for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner in case FIR
No.66/17 dated 11.10.2017, under Sections 8/15/18/29/60 of the Narcotic
Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985.
2. In the asking for the relief of anticipatory bail, the learned
counsel for the petitioner submits that it is a case where the petitioner was
neither found at the spot, nor any recovery was effected from him. It is a
case set up by the investigating agency on the basis of a disclosure
statement, which cannot be relied against the present petitioner. He
further submits that the truck involved in the instant crime, does not
belong to the petitioner and there is nothing on record to connect the
present petitioner with the commission of crime. He further submits that
the petitioner has been enjoying the relief of pre-arrest bail since 2018
and there is nothing adverse on record that he has misused the concession
1 of 6
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:057574
2024:PHHC:057574
of pre-arrest bail. He further submits that in other two similar cases, in
which the petitioner was involved, he has been acquitted in one of the
case, prior to the registration of instant FIR and in other case, he has also
earned acquittal during the pendency of the instant petition, therefore, he
has infact clean antecedents.
3. This Court after considering the above facts, has granted the
relief of pre-arrest bail to the petitioner vide order dated 24.5.2018 and
from that day, the matter has been adjourned on one occasion or the
other.
4. A detailed reply on behalf of the respondent through
Investigating Officer, NCB, Chandigarh has been filed. Before this Court
refer to the reply of the NCB, it is apt to deal with the facts of the present
matter, which have been culled out from reading of the FIR:-
"On 9.10.2017, a secret information was received
by IO Rajan Kumar from reliable sources that "one
person namely Parghat Singh s/o Gurcharan Singh, r/o
Mallekan, Sirsa, Haryana is dealing in trafficking of huge
quantity of Opium and he has reached Ellenabad (H.R.)
on 11.10.2017 through Nohar-Ellanabad Road between
0200 Hrs. to 0400 Hrs. and he is carrying Opium in his
truck bearing no. HR-47-A-6097. The said secret
information was reduced into writing by Rajan Kumar IO
and submitted the same to Kuldeep Sharma,
Superintendent, NCB, Chandigarh Zonal Unit. That on
11.10.2017 the NCB team was constituted by Kuldeep
Sharma, Superintendent, NCB Chandigarh comprising of
Intelligence officer Rajan Kumar, 1.0. Shailendra Prasad
Avdesh Kumar (1.0) and Amit Kumar (Sepoy) for taking
2 of 6
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:057574
2024:PHHC:057574
legal action on the secret information. The said team
reached Ellenabad at 0115 hrs and laid naka at Shri Ram
Dharam Kanta, Ellenabad, Sirsa, Haryana. As per the
information at around 0315 Hrs a truck was noticed
coming from Nohar Side which was signaled by hand to
stop and it was found that the truck was bearing Reg No-
HR-47A-6097 which was matching with the secret
information. The truck driver stopped the truck on the
side of the road there. Then Rajan Kumar 1.0. introduced
himself and the team members of the NCB team to him
and enquired about the identity of the person sitting on
the driving seat of the truck on which the driver
introduced himself as Parghat Singh S/o Gurcharan
Singh R/o Mallekan, Sirsa which was matching with the
secret information. Then it was told to truck driver
Parghat Singh by the Rajan Kumar 1.0. that he has a
secret information that you are carrying a consignment of
illegal Opium in your truck, on which the truck driver
Parghat Singh agreed that there is illegal Opium in his
truck. Thereafter Rajan Kumar informed Ellenabad
Police station on mobile number 8814011644 and
requested for sending police team on the spot. After
some time Hanumant Singh, S.I. reached at the spot with
the police team. The NCB team thereafter consulting
with the Police team about the lack of facility on the spot
decided to take the truck and the truck driver to PS-
Ellanabad. Before this the NCB team had tried hard to
associate independent witness after laying Naka but
because of odd hours during night no witness could be
associated there. The first Panchnama was concluded on
the spot at around 0350 Hrs on which Shailendra Prasad,
1.0, Avdesh Kumar, 1.0, and Amit Kumar, Sepoy put
3 of 6
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:057574
2024:PHHC:057574
their-signatures along with the accused Pargat Singh.
Thereafter Pargat Singh and the truck were taken to the
Police Station, whereon search of the truck, opium
weighing 15.128 kgs and poppy husk weighing 1.890
kgs was recovered."
5. From reading the above, it is crystal clear that from co-
accused Pargat Singh, huge contraband i.e. 15.128 kgs of opium and
1.890 kgs of poppy straw was recovered. There is no dispute that the
petitioner is not named in the FIR and no recovery has been effected from
him, however, the Officers of the NCB, have recorded the disclosure
statement of the co-accused Pargat Singh, wherein, he specifically
disclosed that out of the alleged recovered contraband, 5 kgs was meant
for the present petitioner.
6. The reply further reflects that the petitioner did join the
investigation in pursuance of the order passed by this Court, however, he
under the protection granted by this Court did not co-operate and rather
try to mislead the investigating agency. The petitioner during
investigation put up a specific defence that , as put up by the petitioner
that on the date of occurrence i.e. 11.10.2017, he had visited Amandeep
Hospital, Amritsar, which was subsequently verified by the NCB and the
defence was found to be false. It seems that the petitioner is infact, under
the garb of the protection as granted by this Court is not only misleading
the investigating agency but also scuttle the investigation process.
7. Learned counsel for respondent No.2, on instructions
imparted to him by Mr. Sumit Saini, Intelligence Officer, NCB, submits
4 of 6
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:057574
2024:PHHC:057574
that because of non cooperation of the petitioner, till date, the final report
could not be submitted, whereas, the final report qua other co-accused
Pargat Singh has already been submitted way back in the year 2018 and
the trial is progressing qua him.
8. From the record, it is also transpired that the petitioner is
involved in two more cases, though the petitioner earned acquittal in
those matters, but considering the fact that heavy contraband has been
recovered from the co-accused, which falls within the ambit of
commercial quantity and there are enough evidence collected by the
investigating agency to connect the present petitioner with the main co-
accused Pargat Singh, as well as the antecedents of the present petitioner,
this Court does not find the present case to be a case of pre-arrest bail.
9. The submission as made by the learned counsel for the
petitioner that the disclosure statement of the co-accused is not an
admissible in evidence, would be considered by the learned trial Court
concerned at its appropriate stage especially in view of Section 67 of the
Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act. At this stage, this
Court refrains to make any observation in this regard. However, for the
purpose of anticipatory bail, this submission as made by the learned
counsel for the petitioner cannot be accepted and for this observation, this
Court gets strength from the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court
in the case of State of Haryana Vs. Samarth Kumar, 202(3) RCR
(Crl.) 991. The relevant extract reads as under:-
"4. The High Court decided to grant pre-arrest bail
5 of 6
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:057574
2024:PHHC:057574
to the respondents on the only ground that no
recovery was ef f ect ed f r o mt he res ponde nts and t ha t
they had been implicated only on the basis of the
disclosure statement of the main accused Dinesh
Kumar. Therefore, reliance was placed by the High
Court in the majority judgment of this Court in Tofan
Singh v. State of Tamil Nadu reported in (2021) 4
SCC 1.
9. To grant anticipatory bail in a case of this
nature is not really warranted. Therefore, we are of
the view that the High Court fell into an error in
granting anticipatory bail to the respondents.
8. In view of the above,, the instant petition is dismissed. The
petitioner is directed to surrender before the learned trial Court concerned
within 20 days from today and thereafter the learned trial Court
concerned would take action in accordance with law. In case the
petitioner fails to surrender before the learned trial Court concerned
within 20 days from today, the NCB concerned is free to take action in
accordance with law.
(KULDEEP TIWARI)
April 29, 2024 JUDGE
ajay-1
Whether speaking/reasoned. : Yes/No
Whether Reportable. : Yes/No
6 of 6
