Punjab-Haryana High Court
Ramesh Kumar vs State Of Haryana on 18 March, 2024
Author: Manjari Nehru Kaul
Bench: Manjari Nehru Kaul
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:038582
2024 : PHHC : 038582
203
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CRM-M No.25210 of 2023
Date of decision: 18th March, 2024
Ramesh Kumar
... Petitioner
Versus
State of Haryana
... Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANJARI NEHRU KAUL
Present: Mr. Kuldeep Siwach, Advocates for the petitioner.
Ms. Trishanjali Sharma, Dy. Advocate General, Haryana
for the respondent/State.
MANJARI NEHRU KAUL, J. (ORAL)
1. The petitioner is seeking the concession of bail under
Section 438 Cr.P.C. in case FIR No.172 dated 08.05.2023 under
Sections 18(C), 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances
Act, 1985 registered at Police Station Bhuna, District Fatehabad.
2. On 05.07.2023, while noticing the following submissions
made by learned counsel for the petitioner, this Court had granted the
concession of interim bail to the petitioner and asked him to join
investigation.
"Learned counsel contends that the name of the
petitioner surfaced based on the disclosure statement made
by the co-accused Manoj Kumar from whom the alleged
recovery of 101 grams of opium is effected. Challan stands
presented. No recovery has been effected from the
petitioner. FSL report has also not been received and there
1 of 3
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:038582
CRM-M No.25210 of 2023 2024 : PHHC : 038582
is no call record also establishing his connection with the
co-accused or any other evidence that may link him with
the case. The petitioner is involved in one more case under
the NDPS Act involving non commercial quantity in which
he was granted bail vide order dated 25.03.2021, Annexure
P-2. He relies on the judgments passed by Hon'ble The
Supreme Court in the case of Tofan Singh vs. State of Tamil
Nadu, 2021 (1) RCR (Crl.) 1 and Maulana Mohd. Amir
Rashadi vs. State of U.P. and others, 2012(2) SCC 382.
Further reliance is placed on the judgment of Hon'ble
Supreme Court in Vijay Singh vs. State of Haryana, SLP
(Crl.) 1266 /2023 dated 17.05.2023 wherein the petitioner
who was involved on the basis of disclosure statement, the
recovery being 1.7 kg. of Poppy Straw (Doda Post) and
involvement in one more case under the NDPS Act, was
granted anticipatory bail, which was dismissed by a
coordinate of this Court. In CRM-M-12051-2020 dated
17.06.2020 titled as Mewa Singh vs. State of Punjab, the
petitioner was involved in 3 more cases under the NDPS
Act, was nominated on the basis of disclosure statement,
moreover, the recovery effected in the case was of
commercial quantity of contraband was granted
anticipatory bail by the coordinate Bench of this Court. In
the case of Rajender Singh vs. State of Haryana, CRM-M-
17076-2023 dated 11.04.2023, also the petitioner who was
implicated based on the disclosure statement, the quantity
recovered was non commercial, he was involved in another
case wherein non commercial quantity was recovered, a
coordinate Bench granted him anticipatory bail. In CRM-
M-22428-2022 dated 21.11.2022 titled as Ashok Kumar vs.
State of Haryana, the petitioner involved on the basis of
disclosure statement was granted anticipatory bail wherein
2 of 3
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:038582
CRM-M No.25210 of 2023 2024 : PHHC : 038582
he was involved in 3 more cases under the NDPS Act in one
of which he was convicted. In Khushkaran Singh @ Vicky
vs. State of Punjab, CRM-M-11079-2023 dated 02.03.2023,
a case of disclosure statement, wherein by relying on the
order passed by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Vijay Singh
(supra), interim bail was granted. The petitioner is ready
and willing to join the investigation as and when required
by the investigating agency."
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in
compliance of the order dated 05.07.2023, the petitioner has joined
investigation and cooperated with the investigating agency.
4. Learned State counsel, on instructions, does not dispute the
factum of the petitioner having joined investigation and cooperated
with the investigating agency. He, on further instructions submits that
the petitioner is not required for further investigation much less for his
custodial interrogation.
5. In the circumstances, the petition is allowed and the interim
order dated 05.07.2023 is made absolute subject to the conditions laid
down in Section 438(2) Cr.P.C. Needless to say, in case the petitioner
misuses the concession of bail granted to him, the State would be at
liberty to seek cancellation of the bail granted to him.
(MANJARI NEHRU KAUL)
JUDGE
March 18, 2024
rps
Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No
Whether reportable Yes/No
3 of 3
