Punjab-Haryana High Court
Ajay Kumar vs State Of Haryana on 14 November, 2024
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:148922
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
105 CRM-M-56593-2024
Date of Decision : November 14, 2024
AJAY KUMAR -PETITIONER
V/S
STATE OF HARYANA -RESPONDENT
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KULDEEP TIWARI
Present: Mr. D.S. Virk, Advocate
for the petitioner.
Mr. Bhupender Singh, D.A.G., Haryana.
***
KULDEEP TIWARI, J. (ORAL)
1. Through the instant petition, as instituted under Section 482
of the B.N.S.S., the petitioner seeks the concession of anticipatory bail, in
FIR No.669 dated 23.09.2024, under Section(s) 21(b)/61/85 of the
N.D.P.S. Act, 1985, registered at P.S. Rania, District Sirsa.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, the
petitioner has no concern whatsoever with the alleged recovery of 102
grams of Heroin, which has been effected from co-accused Gurtej Singh
@ Teja. Moreover, when the allegedly recovered Heroin falls in the
category of "non-commercial quantity", therefore, the statutory bar as
engrafted in Section 37 of the N.D.P.S. Act, 1985, is not applicable in the
present case. The name of the petitioner surfaced for the first time ever
only in the disclosure statement, as suffered by his co-accused (supra),
whereupon, he has been arrayed as an accused in the instant FIR. He
contests the evidentiary vigor of the said disclosure statement, on the
1 of 3
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:148922
ground that, the same was suffered by the co-accused (supra) while being
in police custody.
3. It would be apt to record here that, although the instant
petition voices the petitioner to be involved in two more cases registered
under the N.D.P.S. Act, however, the learned State counsel, on
instructions from the official/officer concerned, informs this Court that the
petitioner is involved in four more cases registered under the N.D.P.S.
Act.
4. Although the petitioner has been nominated as an accused on
the basis of disclosure statement and although the alleged recovery of
Heroin, as effected from petitioner's co-accused (supra), falls in the
category of "non-commercial quantity", however, considering the fact
that:- (i) the petitioner has, consequent upon his earning the relief of bail
in other criminal cases of similar nature, instead of mending his ways,
again indulged in trade of narcotics, by violating the conditions of bail
granted to him; (ii) it is a 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. Moreover, insofar as evidentiary worth of the disclosure statement
of co-accused (supra) is concerned, the same can only be considered and
ascertained at the appropriate stage of trial.
5. It would also be pertinent to record here that, petitioner's co-
accused Kulwinder Singh had also approached this Court, through filing
CRM-M-52290-2024, thereby seeking a relief alike to the one craved by
2 of 3
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:148922
the petitioner, however, the said relief was declined to him by this Court,
vide order dated 21.10.2024.
6. Consequently, 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. In
summa, the asked for relief of anticipatory bail is declined to the
petitioner and the petition is accordingly dismissed.
7. 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 14, 2024 JUDGE
devinder
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No
Whether Reportable : Yes/No
3 of 3
