Punjab-Haryana High Court
Wazir Singh vs State Of Punjab on 29 January, 2024
Author: Jasjit Singh Bedi
Bench: Jasjit Singh Bedi
2024:PHHC:011307
CRM-M-3357-2024 -1-
246 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CRM-M-3357-2024
Date of Decision : January 29, 2024
Wazir Singh .....Petitioner
Vs.
State of Punjab ...Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASJIT SINGH BEDI
Present: Mr. Vijay Sangwan, Advocate for
Mr. K.B. Raheja, Advocate
for the petitioner.
Mr. Harkanwar Jeet Singh, Assistant Advocate General, Punja
JASJIT SINGH BEDI, J. (Oral)
The Prayer in this petition under Section 439 Cr.PC is for the
grant of regular bail in case FIR No.08 dated 17.01.2023 under Section 22 of
the NDPS Act, 1985 (offence under Section 29 of the NDPS Act, 1985 added
later on) registered at Police Station Lakho-Ke-Behram, District Ferozepur.
2. The brief facts of the case are that while the police party was on
patrolling duty, Puran Singh was apprehended and got recovered 5120
tablets of Clovedol 100 SR containing Tramadol Hydrochloride 100 mg.
During interrogation, Puran Singh disclosed that the intoxicating
tablets have been given to him by petitioner-Wazir Singh on a payment of
Rs.10,000/-. Accordingly, petitioner-Wazir Singh was nominated as an
accused in the present case.
2024:PHHC:011307
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the
petitioner had 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, Puran Singh. Pursuant to his arrest, no recovery whatsoever
had been effected. Reliance is placed on the judgments in the cases of Tofan
Singh Versus State of Tamil Nadu, 2020 AIR (Supreme Court) 5592,
Rakesh Kumar Singla Versus Union of India, 2021(1) RCR (Criminal)
704, Surinder Kumar Khanna Versus Intelligence Officer Directorate of
Revenue Intelligence, 2018(3) RCR (Criminal) 954, State by (NCB)
Bengaluru Versus Pallulabid Ahmad Arimutta & Anr. 2022(1) RCR
(Criminal) 762, Sanjeev Chandra Agarwal & Anr. Versus Union of India
2021(4) RCR (Criminal) 590, Vijay Singh Versus The State of Haryana,
bearing Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No.(s).1266/2023 decided on
17.05.2023 & Vikrant Singh Versus State of Punjab, CRM-M-39657-
2020", wherein it has been held that the accused can be granted the
concession of regular bail where he has been named in the disclosure
statement of his co-accused and there is no other corroborative evidence
against the accused. As the petitioner was a first-time offender, in custody
since 10.11.2023 and none of the 12 prosecution witnesses had been
examined so far, he was entitled to the concession of bail.
4. The learned counsel for the respondent-State, on the other hand,
contends that in view of the serious allegations levelled against the
2024:PHHC:011307
petitioner, he was not entitled to the grant of bail. He, however, admits that
the petitioner is named in the disclosure statement of his co-accused and no
recovery was effected from him. He also concedes that the petitioner was
a first-time offender, in custody since 10.11.2023 and none of the
12 prosecution witnesses have been examined so far.
5. I have heard the learned counsel for both the parties at length.
6. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Haryana
Versus Samarth Kumar (supra), held as under:-
"4. The High Court decided to grant pre-arrest bail to
the respondents on the only ground that no recovery was
effected from the respondents and that 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.
5. But, it is contended by the learned Additional
Advocate General appearing on behalf of the State of
Haryana that on the basis of the anticipatory bail
granted to the respondents, the Special Court was
constrained to grant regular bail even to the main
accused-Dinesh Kumar and he jumped bail. Fortunately,
the main accused-Dinesh Kumar has again been
apprehended. According to the learned Additional
Advocate General, the respondent in the second of these
appeals is also a habitual offender.
2024:PHHC:011307
6. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
respondent in the first of these Appeals contends that the
State is guilty of suppression of the vital fact that the
respondent was granted regular bail after the charge-
sheet was filed and that therefore, nothing survives in the
appeal. But, we do not agree.
7. The order of the Special Court granting regular
bail to the respondents shows that the said order was
passed in pursuance of the anticipatory bail granted by
the High Court. Therefore, the same cannot be a ground
to hold that the present appeals have become
infructuous.
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.
10. In view of the above, the appeals are allowed. The
impugned orders are set-aside. As a consequence, the
Appellant-State is entitled to take steps, in accordance
with law.
[emphasis supplied]
In Vijay Singh Versus The State of Haryana, bearing Special
Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No.(s).1266/2023 decided on 17.05.2023, it was
held as under:-
2024:PHHC:011307
"The petitioner is alleged to have committed offences
under Sections 15 and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and
Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter called
the NDPS Act". His application for anticipatory bail was
rejected by the High Court. The allegations in the FIR
are that 1.7 Kg of Poppy Straw (Doda Post) was
recovered from the co-accused. The petitioner
concededly was not present at the spot but was named by
the co-accused. That apart there is no other material to
implicate the petitioner. The prosecution urges that
another case with allegations of commission of offence
under the NDPS Act are pending against the petitioner.
It is not denied that in those proceedings he was granted
bail.
Having regard to these circumstances, the
petitioner is directed to the enlarged on anticipatory
bail, subject to such terms and conditions as the trial
Court may impose.
The petition is allowed.
All pending applications are disposed of."
(emphasis supplied)
The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State by (NCB)
Bengaluru Vs. Pallulabid Ahmad Arimutta & Anr. (supra), held as
under:-
"9. Having gone through the records alongwith the
tabulated statement of the respondents submitted on
behalf of the petitioner-NCB and on carefully perusing
the impugned orders passed in each case, it emerges
that except for the voluntary statements of A-1 and A-2
2024:PHHC:011307
in the first case and that of the respondents themselves
recorded under Section 67 of the NDPS Act, it appears,
prima facie, that no substantial material was available
with the prosecution at the time of arrest to connect the
respondents with the allegations levelled against them
of indulging in drug trafficking. It has not been denied
by the prosecution that except for the respondent in SLP
(Crl.) No. 1569/2021, none of the other respondents
were found to be in possession of commercial quantities
of psychotropic substances, as contemplated under the
NDPS Act.
10. It has been held in clear terms in Tofan Singh Vs.
State of Tamil Nadu, (2021) 4 SCC 1, that a
confessional statement recorded under Section 67 of the
NDPS Act will remain inadmissible in the trial of an
offence under the NDPS Act. In the teeth of the
aforesaid decision, the arrests made by the
petitionerNCB, on the basis of the confession/voluntary
statements of the respondents or the co-accused under
Section 67 of the NDPS Act, cannot form the basis for
overturning the impugned orders releasing them on
bail. The CDR details of some of the accused or the
allegations of tampering of evidence on the part of one
of the respondents is an aspect that will be examined at
the stage of trial. For the aforesaid reason, this Court is
not inclined to interfere in the orders dated 16th
September, 2019, 14th January, 2020, 16th January,
2020, 19th December, 2019 and 20th January, 2020
passed in SLP (Crl.) No@ Diary No. 22702/2020, SLP
(Crl.) No. 1454/2021, SLP (Crl.) No. 1465/2021, SLP
(Crl.) No. 1773-74/2021 and SLP (Crl.) No. 2080/2021
2024:PHHC:011307
respectively. The impugned orders are, accordingly,
upheld and the Special Leave Petitions filed by the
petitioner-NCB seeking cancellation of bail granted to
the respective respondents, are dismissed as meritless."
This Court in the case of Vikrant Singh Versus State of
Punjab, CRM-M-39657-2020, held as under:-
" It is not in dispute that the petitioners have not
been named in the FIR. No recovery has been effected
from the petitioners and the alleged recovery has been
effected from two co-accused Rakesh Sharma and
Ravdeep Singh alias Sheru. The petitioners are sought
to be implicated solely on the basis of the disclosure
statement made by the co-accused Rakesh Sharma and
Ravdeep Singh @ Sheru and even after the petitioners
were arrayed as accused in pursuance of the disclosure
statements, no recovery had been made from the
petitioners.
The petitioners have been in custody since
06.11.2020 (Vikrant Singh), 05.12.2020 (Subash
Chander) and 23.04.2021 (Davinder Singh) and challan
in the present case has already been presented and there
are 32 witnesses, out of whom only one has been
examined and thus, the trial is likely to take time on
account of Covid-19 Pandemic. The petitioners are not
involved in any other case. With respect to the call
details, suffice to say that no dates on which the said
calls had been allegedly made by the co-accused,
Rakesh Sharma and Ravdeep Singh alias Sheru to the
petitioners or vice-versa have been mentioned in the
2024:PHHC:011307
affidavit or in the report under Section 173 Cr.P.C.
Moreover, even the transcript of the said conversations
are not a part of the record under Section 173 Cr.P.C. A
Division Bench of this Court in Narcotics Control
Bureau's case (supra), was pleased to observe as
under:-
"Still further, no conversation detail
between accused Ramesh Kumar Patil and
accused Sandeep has been produced by the
prosecution. Mere call details is not
sufficient to prove that Sandeep accused
was also involved in the business of
narcotic drugs or he had any connected
with Ramesh Kumar Patil.
In view of the above, no case is made
out for grant of leave to appeal against the
acquittal of Sandeep accused."
In judgment of the Gujarat High Court in Yash Jayeshbhai
Champaklal Shah's case (supra), it has been observed as under:-
"Having heard learned advocates for the
appearing parties, it emerges on record that the
applicant is not found in possession of any contraband
article. Over and above that, the call data records may
reveal that in an around the time of incident, he was in
contact with the co-accused who were found in
possession of contraband. Since there is no recording of
conversation in between the accused, mere contacts
with the co-accused who were found in possession
cannot be treated to be a corroborative material in
2024:PHHC:011307
absence of substantive material found against the
accused."
A perusal of the above judgment would show that
without the transcript of the conversations exchanged
between the co-accused, mere call details would not be
considered to be corroborative material in absence of
substantive material found against the accused. In the
present case, there is no other material against the
petitioners.
Keeping in view the above-said facts and
circumstances, as well as law laid down in the
judgments noticed hereinabove, the present petitions are
allowed and the petitioners are ordered to be released
on bail on their furnishing bail/surety bonds to the
satisfaction of the concerned trial Court/Duty
Magistrate and subject to their not being required in
any other case.
(emphasis supplied)
7. A perusal of the aforementioned judgments would show that
bail can be granted to an accused where he has been named in a disclosure
statement of his co-accused but there is no recovery from him on his arrest
and the CDRs do not disclose the actual conversation that transpired between
the accused from whom the recovery was effected and the one named in the
disclosure statement.
8. In the instant case, the petitioner is named in the disclosure
statement of his co-accused and no recovery whatsoever has been effected
from him. Further, the petitioner is a first-time offender, in custody since
2024:PHHC:011307
10.11.2023 and none of the 12 prosecution witnesses have been examined so
far. Therefore, the Trial in the present case will not conclude anytime soon.
Hence, the further incarceration of the petitioner is not required as a prima
facie satisfaction under Section 37 NDPS can be recorded in the
aforementioned factual scenario.
9. Thus without commenting on the merits of the case, the present
petition is allowed and the petitioner-Wazir Singh son of Kartar Singh is
ordered to be released on bail, subject to his furnishing bail bonds and surety
bonds to the satisfaction of learned CJM/Duty Magistrate, concerned.
10. The petitioner shall appear before the police station concerned
on the first Monday of every month till the conclusion of the trial and inform
in writing each time that he is not involved in any other crime other than the
present one.
11. The petitioner (or anyone on his behalf) shall prepare an FDR in
the sum of Rs.1,00,000/- and deposit the same with the Trial Court. The
same would be liable to be forfeited as per law in case of the absence of the
petitioner from trial without sufficient cause.
12. The petition stands disposed of.
( JASJIT SINGH BEDI )
January 29, 2024 JUDGE
satish
Whether speaking/reasoned : YES / NO
2024:PHHC:011307
Whether reportable : YES / NO
