Punjab-Haryana High Court
Jashandeep Singh vs State Of Punjab on 23 January, 2024
Author: Anoop Chitkara
Bench: Anoop Chitkara
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:008904
CRM-M-777-2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANAAT CHANDIGARH
CRM-M-777-2024
Reserved on: 18.01.2024
Pronounced on: 23.01.2024
Jashandeep Singh ...Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab ...Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANOOP CHITKARA
Present: Mr. A.S. Brar, Advocate
for the petitioner.
Mr. Ravinder Singh, A.A.G., Punjab.
****
ANOOP CHITKARA, J.
FIR No. Dated Police Station Sections
135 20.07.2023 City South, District 21, 22 and 29 of NDPS Act
Moga (Section 7, 13 of PC Act
added later on)
1. The petitioner, apprehending arrest in the FIR captioned above has come up
before this Court under Section 438 CrPC seeking anticipatory bail by filing second bail
application. Counsel for the petitioner clarify that first petition was withdrawn with
liberty to file fresh due to technical defect.
2. According to counsel for the petitioner, the accused has the following criminal
antecedents:
Sr. No. FIR No. Date Offences Police Station
1. 261 19.12.2019 21 of NDPS Act City South Moga
2. 92 22.04.2018 22 of NDPS Act City South Moga
3. 147 08.07.2018 304 IPC City Moga
4. 123 29.07.2015 22 of NDPS Act City South Moga
5. 40 24.02.2022 21/29 of NDPS Act City South Moga
3. Vide order dated 09.01.2024, this Court had issued notice and had not granted any
interim stay.
4. Facts of the case are being taken from reply dated 16.01.2024 filed by concerned
DySP which reads as follows:
"Prosecution case is that on 20.07.2023 a police party headed by
ASI Tarsem Singh of CIA Staff, Moga was present at Bahona Chowk, Moga
in connection with patrolling and checking of suspected persons then
1 of 6
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:008904
CRM-M-777-2024
special informer came there and informed that Kirandeep Kaur @ Kirna
wife of Gurpreet Singh, Jasvir Kaur @ Jassi wife of Baljit Singh @ Mintu
and Baljit Singh @ Mintu son of Kuldip Singh used to sell intoxicating
tablets and Heroin and in case raid is conducted then they can be
apprehended red handed and from their possession huge quantity of
heroin and intoxicant tablets can be recovered. On the basis of said
information ASI Tarsem Singh sent ruqa to the police station and got
registered the present case. On receiving the information another police
party headed by ASI Sukhwinder Singh reached at the spot and
apprehended said Kirandeep Kaur @ Kirna wife of Gurpreet Singh and
Jasvir Kaur @ Jassi wife of Baljit Singh @ Mintu and Baljit Singh @ Mintu
son of Kuldip Singh and recovered 5 grams heroin and 130 Etizolam
tablets from their possession."
5. Counsel for the petitioner seeks bail on the ground that the evidence collected is
in the shape of disclosure statement which is inadmissible in law. He further submits
that the prosecution is fishing the evidence which is impermissible in criminal law. In
addition to that, there was no recovery from the petitioner and it is a witch hunt.
Counsel for the petitioner also submits that there is no legally admissible evidence and
he is entitled to bail.
6. State refers to reply filed by DySP dated 16.01.2024, para no.12 of which reads as
under:-
"During investigation of the case, said Kirandeep Kaur @
Kirna wife of Gurpreet Singh and Jasvir Kaur @ Jassi wife of Baljit
Singh @ Mintu and Baljit Singh @ Mintu son of Kuldip Singh, got
recorded their disclosure statement that they had purchased said
130 intoxicant tablets and 5 grams heroin from Karamjit Singh @
Sahil son of Kulvir Singh, Sona wife of Pawan Kumar, Kalu residents
of Sadhan Wali, Jashandeep Singh @ Kali (Petitioner) son of Raja
Singh, Amarjit Singh resident of Chowk Shekhan, Moga as per
instigation of Parkash Singh son of Harbhajan Singh resident of
Shri Guru Chander Nagar, Moga. On the basis of said disclosure
statement said Karamjit Singh @ Sahil son of Kulvir Singh, Sona
wife of Pawan Kumar, Kalu residents of Sadhan Wali, Jashandeep
Singh @ Kali (Petitioner) son of Raja Singh, Amarjit Singh resident
of Chowk Shekhan, Moga and Parkash Singh were nominated as
accused and offence u/s 29 of NDPS Act was added vide DDR
No.31 Dated 21.07.2023."
7. Based on the said reply, State counsel submits that they need custodial
interrogation of the petitioner and he is not entitled to bail. State Counsel also refers to
judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court passed in case State of Haryana v. Samarth Kumar,
2022(3) R.C.R.(Criminal) 991, wherein Hon'ble Supreme Court holds,
2 of 6
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:008904
CRM-M-777-2024
[8]. In cases of this nature, the respondents may be able to take
advantage of the decision in Tofan Singh v. State of Tamil Nadu (supra),
perhaps at the time of arguing the regular bail application or at the time
of final hearing after conclusion of the trial.
[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. An analysis of the pleadings and arguments addressed by counsel for the parties
would lead to following outcome. The police had recovered commercial quantity of
Etizolam along with small quantity of Heroin from co-accused which was purchased by
them from the petitioner and co-accused. There is sufficient prima facie evidence
collected by the Investigator against him. In addition to that, the investigation reveals
that the petitioner was the supplier of the contrabanad and he is part of the drug racket.
In the entirety of facts and circumstances and the fact that similar placed co-accused
Karamjit Singh and Amarjit Singh were arrested, the case of the petitioner is on similar
footing. There is sufficient prima facie evidence that the petitioner along with co-
accused had sold commercial quantity of Etizolam to Kirandeep Kaur, Jasvir Kaur and
Baljit Singh. Custodial interrogation of the petitioner is required to find out respective
quantity which have been given to these people independently or jointly. Petitioner's
custodial interrogation is required to unearth the persons from whom the petitioner and
his co-accused had purchased the drugs. Further the petitioner has failed to satisfy rigor
of Section 37 of NDPS Act and is not entitled to bail.
9. Given the nature of allegations, custodial interrogation is required. An analysis of
the allegations and evidence collected does not warrant the grant of bail to the
petitioner.
10. In Sumitha Pradeep v Arun Kumar CK, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1529, Supreme Court
holds,
[16]. ... 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 anticipatory bail.
3 of 6
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:008904
CRM-M-777-2024
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
anticipatory bail. However, even if custodial interrogation is not
required or necessitated, by itself, cannot be a ground to grant
anticipatory bail.
11. In State of Gujarat v. Mohanlal Jitamalji Porwal (1987) 2 SCC 364, Supreme Court
holds,
[5]. ....The entire community is aggrieved if the economic
offenders who ruin the economy of the State are not brought to
book. A murder may be committed in the heat of moment upon
passions being aroused. An economic offence is committed with
cool calculation and deliberate design with an eye on personal
profit regardless of the consequence to the community. A
disregard for the interest of the community can be manifested
only at the cost of forfeiting the trust and faith of the community
in the system to administer justice in an even-handed manner
without fear of criticism from the quarters which view white collar
crimes with a permissive eye unmindful of the damage done to the
national economy and national interest....."
12. In State rep. by CBI v. Anil Sharma, (1997) 7 SCC 187, Supreme Court holds,
[6]. We find force in the submission of the CBI that custodial
interrogation is qualitatively more elicitation oriented than
questioning a suspect who is well ensconded with a favourable
order under Section 438 of the code. In a case like this effective
interrogation of suspected person is of tremendous advantage in
disinterring many useful informations and also materials which
would have been concealed. Succession such interrogation would
elude if the suspected person knows that he is well protected and
insulted by a pre-arrest bail during the time he interrogated. Very
often interrogation in such a condition would reduce to a mere
ritual. The argument that the custodial interrogation is fraught with
the danger of the person being subjected to third degree methods
need not be countenanced, for, such an argument can be advanced
by all accused in all criminal cases. The court has to presume that
responsible Police Officers would conduct themselves in task of
disinterring offences would not conduct themselves as offenders.
13. InJai Prakash Singh v. State of Bihar and another (2012) 4 SCC 379, Supreme Court
holds,
[19]. Parameters for grant of anticipatory bail in a serious offence
are required to be satisfied and further while granting such relief,
the court must record the reasons therefor. Anticipatory bail can be
granted only in exceptional circumstances where the court is prima
facie of the view that the applicant has falsely been enroped in the
crime and would not misuse his liberty. [See D.K. Ganesh Babu v.
P.T. Manokaran (2007) 4 SCC 434, State of Maharashtra v. Mohd.
Sajid Husain Mohd. S. Husain (2008) 1 SCC 213 and Union of India
v. Padam Narain Aggarwal (2008) 13 SCC 305].
4 of 6
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:008904
CRM-M-777-2024
14. In Y.S. Jagan Mohan Reddy v. CBI (2013) 7 SCC 439, Supreme Court holds,
[34]. Economic offences constitute a class apart and need to be
visited with a different approach in the matter of bail. The
economic offences having deep-rooted conspiracies and involving
huge loss of public funds need to be viewed seriously and
considered as grave offences affecting the economy of the country
as a whole and thereby posing serious threat to the financial
health of the country.
[35]. While granting bail, the court has to keep in mind the nature
of accusations, the nature of evidence in support thereof, the
severity of the punishment which conviction will entail, the
character of the accused, circumstances which are peculiar to the
accused, reasonable possibility of securing the presence of the
accused at the trial, reasonable apprehension of the witnesses
being tampered with, the larger interests of the public/State and
other similar considerations.
15. In P. Chidambaram v. Directorate of Enforcement, 2019 9 SCC 24, Supreme Court
holds,
[70]. We are conscious of the fact that the legislative intent behind
the introduction of Section 438 Cr.P.C., 1973 is to safeguard the
individual's personal liberty and to protect him from the possibility
of being humiliated and from being subjected to unnecessary
police custody. However, the court must also keep in view that a
criminal offence is not just an offence against an individual, rather
the larger societal interest is at stake. Therefore, a delicate balance
is required to be established between the two rights - safeguarding
the personal liberty of an individual and the societal interest. It
cannot be said that refusal to grant anticipatory bail would amount
to denial of the rights conferred upon the appellant under Article
21 of the Constitution of India.
16. In Central Bureau of Investigation v. Santosh Karnani, Cr.A 1148 of 2023, dated
17-04- 2023, Supreme Court, in an FIR registered under sections under Sections 7, 13(1)
and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, holds,
[24]. The time−tested principles are that no straitjacket formula
can be applied for grant or refusal of anticipatory bail. The judicial
discretion of the Court shall be guided by various relevant factors
and largely it will depend upon the facts and circumstances of
each case. The Court must draw a delicate balance between
liberty of an individual as guaranteed under Article 21 of the
Constitution and the need for a fair and free investigation, which
must be taken to its logical conclusion. Arrest has devastating and
irreversible social stigma, humiliation, insult, mental pain and
other fearful consequences. Regardless thereto, when the Court,
on consideration of material information gathered by the
Investigating Agency, is prima facie satisfied that there is
something more than a mere needle of suspicion against the
accused, it cannot jeopardise the investigation, more so when the
allegations are grave in nature.
5 of 6
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:008904
CRM-M-777-2024
[31]. The nature and gravity of the alleged offence should have
been kept in mind by the High Court. Corruption poses a serious
threat to our society and must be dealt with iron hands. It not
only leads to abysmal loss to the public exchequer but also
tramples good governance. The common man stands deprived of
the benefits percolating under social welfare schemes and is the
worst hit. It is aptly said, "Corruption is a tree whose branches are
of an unmeasurable length; they spread everywhere; and the dew
that drops from thence, Hath infected some chairs and stools of
authority." Hence, the need to be extra conscious.
17. In the background of the allegations and the light of the judicial precedents
mentioned above in the facts and circumstances peculiar to this case, the petitioner fails
to make a case for anticipatory bail.
18. Any observation made hereinabove is neither an expression of opinion on the
case's merits, neither the court taking up regular bail nor the trial Court shall advert to
these comments.
Petition dismissed. Interim orders, if any, stand vacated. All pending applications, if any,
also stand disposed.
(ANOOP CHITKARA)
JUDGE
23.01.2024
Jyoti Sharma
Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes
Whether reportable: No.
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:008904
6 of 6
