Punjab-Haryana High Court
Ajay vs State Of Haryana on 7 November, 2024
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:145008
CRM-M-54223-2024 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
106 CRM-M-54223-2024
Date of Decision : November 07, 2024
AJAY -PETITIONER
V/S
STATE OF HARYANA -RESPONDENT
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KULDEEP TIWARI
Present: Ms/Mrs. Prabhjot Kaur Virk, Advocate
for the petitioner.
Mr. Rajesh Gaur, Addl. A.G., Haryana.
***
KULDEEP TIWARI, J. (ORAL)
1. Through the instant petition, as instituted under Section 482 of the
B.N.S.S., 2023, the petitioner seeks the concession of anticipatory bail, in case
FIR No.231 dated 03.08.2024, under Section 20(b)(ii)(C) of the N.D.P.S. Act,
1985, registered at P.S. Sadar Narwana, District Jind.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner
has no concern whatsoever with the contraband (01 kg 18 grams of Charas)
recovered from the possession of his co-accused Sukhdev. The name of the
petitioner surfaced for the first time ever only in the disclosure statement
suffered by his co-accused during the course of investigation. Moreover, she
contests the evidentiary vigor of the said disclosure statement(s), on the ground
that, the same was suffered by petitioner's co-accused while being in police
custody. Lastly, she submits that, although the petitioner is involved in six
more cases, which includes one case registered under the N.D.P.S. Act,
however, he has been granted bail in five cases, and, acquitted in one case.
3. Although the petitioner has been nominated as an accused on the
basis of disclosure statement, however, taking into account: (i) the fact that, the
1 of 2
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:145008
recovered contraband (01 kg 18 grams of Charas) undisputedly falls in the
category of "commercial quantity"; (ii) the fact that, instead of mending his
conduct after getting the concession of bail/interim bail in five FIRs, which
include one FIR under the N.D.P.S. Act, the petitioner again indulged in trade
of narcotics, which resulted in his becoming nominated as an accused in the
present FIR; and (iii) the settled position of law that liberal approach in the
matters related to the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances is uncalled
for; therefore, this Court refrains from granting the asked for relief to the
petitioner. Insofar as evidentiary worth of the disclosure statement of
petitioner's co-accused is concerned, the same can only be considered and
ascertained at the appropriate stage of trial.
4. Therefore, this Court does not deem it a fit case to grant the
extraordinary relief of anticipatory bail to the petitioner. To reach at this
conclusion, this Court also garners strength from the judgment rendered by the
Hon'ble Supreme Court, in case titled as "The State of Haryana Versus
Samarth Kumar", 2022 (3) RCR (Criminal) 991. Consequently, the asked for
relief of anticipatory bail is declined to the petitioner and the petition is
accordingly dismissed.
5. However, anything observed hereinabove shall neither be
construed to have any bearing on the outcome of the trial, nor the trial Court
concerned shall be influenced by any of the observations recorded herein.
(KULDEEP TIWARI)
November 07, 2024 JUDGE
devinder
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No
Whether Reportable : Yes/No
2 of 2
