Punjab-Haryana High Court
Varinder Singh Alias Ricky vs State Of Punjab on 18 March, 2024
Author: Jasgurpreet Singh Puri
Bench: Jasgurpreet Singh Puri
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:038204
CRM-M-64101-2023 -1-
2024:PHHC:038204
202
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CRM-M-64101-2023
Date of decision: 18.03.2024
VARINDER SINGH ALIAS RICKY
...Petitioner
VERSUS
STATE OF PUNJAB
...Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASGURPREET SINGH PURI
Present:- Mr. Saurav Bhatia, Advocate
for the petitioner.
Mr. Adeshwar Singh Pannu, AAG, Punjab.
****
JASGURPREET SINGH PURI, J. (Oral)
1. The present is a second petition filed under Section 439 of the
Code of Criminal Procedure for the grant of regular bail to the petitioner in FIR
No.147 dated 01.11.2022, under Section 21 of the NDPS Act (Section 29 of the
NDPS Act added later on), registered at Police Station Navi Baradari, Jalandhar,
District Jalandhar, Punjab.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that although the
present is a second successive bail petition filed by the petitioner and earlier
bail petition was dismissed as withdrawn on 11.10.2023 and more than 5
months have elapsed but not even a single prosecution witness has been
examined by the prosecution till date. He further submitted that the petitioner is
in custody for 11 months and 3 days and the charges in the present case were
framed by the learned trial Court on 14.07.2023, which is more than 8 months
1 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:038204
2024:PHHC:038204
but not even a single prosecution witness has been examined till date. He
further submitted that it is a case where the name of the petitioner was
nominated on the basis of disclosure statement of co-accused, namely, Lucky
Kumar from whom there was a recovery of 97 grams of ice drug containing salt
methamphetamine and the allegations against the petitioner were that he was
instrumental in getting another contraband supplied from other co-accused,
namely, Pardeep to the aforesaid Lucky Kumar while he was in jail and at that
time, the petitioner was also in jail in some other case. He also submitted that
neither any phone has been recovered from the petitioner nor there is any other
material available with the prosecution to connect the petitioner with the present
offence except for the disclosure statement of aforesaid co-accused, namely,
Lucky Kumar, which is otherwise not admissible in evidence and referred to a
judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Tofan Singh versus State of Tamil
Nadu, 2021 (4) SCC 1 to further substantiate his arguments. He further
submitted that although the petitioner is involved in 4 more cases under the
NDPS Act but he has since been acquitted in 2 cases and considering the
aforesaid facts and circumstances of the present case especially the fact that
there has been no recovery from the petitioner and his name was nominated on
the basis of disclosure statement of aforesaid co-accused, he may be considered
for the grant of regular bail.
3. On the other hand, Mr. Adeshwar Singh Pannu, AAG, Punjab
submitted that it is correct that the petitioner is in custody for 11 months and 3
days and charges in the present case were framed by the learned trial Court on
14.07.2023 but no prosecution witness has been examined till date. He has
however opposed the grant of regular bail to the petitioner on the ground that
2 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:038204
2024:PHHC:038204
although the recovery was not made from the petitioner but was made from the
aforesaid co-accused falls in the category of commercial quantity, therefore the
petitioner is not entitled for the concession of regular bail. He further submitted
that the petitioner is a habitual offender and he is involved in 4 more cases
under the NDPS Act besides some other FIRs under the other provisions of law,
although he has been acquitted in 2 cases under the NDPS Act and at the time
when the present FIR was registered, the petitioner was already in jail.
4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties.
5. The petitioner is in custody for 11 months and 3 days. As per the
learned counsel for the parties, challan was presented by the police on
28.04.2023 and thereafter, charges were framed by the learned trial Court on
14.07.2023 and more than 8 months have elapsed but not even a single
prosecution witness has been examined till date. The name of the petitioner was
nominated on the basis of disclosure statement of aforesaid co-accused, namely,
Lucky Kumar. There has been no recovery from the petitioner and the petitioner
was already in jail at the time when the present FIR was lodged. During the
course of arguments, a specific query was raised to the learned State counsel as
to whether there was any other material to connect the petitioner with the
present offence apart from the disclosure statement of aforesaid co-accused, to
which he could not give any such information. It is a settled law that the
disclosure statement of a co-accused is per se not admissible in evidence and
reference in this regard made by the learned counsel for the petitioner to the
aforesaid judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Tofan Singh's
case (supra) is well placed. The mere fact that the petitioner is involved in
some more cases cannot itself become a ground for denial of regular bail to the
3 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:038204
2024:PHHC:038204
petitioner. Apart from the above, it is also not explained by the learned State
counsel as to why more than 8 months have elapsed after the framing of the
charges that not even a single prosecution witness has been examined till date.
Admittedly, no recovery was effected from the petitioner but it was made from
the aforesaid co-accused on whose disclosure statement the petitioner was
nominated in the present case and therefore, the bar contained under Section 37
of the NDPS Act will not apply to the petitioner.
6. Consequently, the present petition is allowed. The petitioner shall
be released on regular bail, if not required in any other case, subject to
furnishing bail bonds/surety bonds to the satisfaction of the learned trial
Court/Duty Magistrate concerned.
7. However, anything observed hereinabove shall not be treated as an
expression of opinion on the merits of the case and is meant for the purpose of
deciding the present petition only.
(JASGURPREET SINGH PURI)
18.03.2024 JUDGE
Chetan Thakur
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No
Whether reportable : Yes/No
4 of 4
