Kulwant Singh vs State Of Punjab
2024 Latest Caselaw 19249 P&H

Punjab-Haryana High Court

Kulwant Singh vs State Of Punjab on 19 October, 2024

Author: Rajesh Bhardwaj

Bench: Rajesh Bhardwaj

                                Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:136948



CRM-M No.51769 of 2024                  -1-



105
            THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
                   AT CHANDIGARH

                                        CRM-M No.51769 of 2024
                                        Date of Decision: 19.10.2024

Kulwant Singh
                                                             ..... Petitioner

                                    Versus

State of Punjab
                                                          ..... Respondent


CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BHARDWAJ

                   ***
Present:    Mr. Kuldip Singh, Advocate
            for the petitioner.

                   ***

RAJESH BHARDWAJ, J.

1. Present petition has been filed under Section 482 of

Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 praying for the grant of

anticipatory bail to the petitioner in case FIR No.77, dated 16.09.2024,

under Sections 22 & 29 of NDPS Act, registered at Police Station Lakho

Ke Behram, District Ferozepur.

2. As per the facts of the case, on 16.09.2024 when the police

party while on patrolling and checking the suspicious persons in village

Sarih Wala Saida, a secret information was received to the effect that

Rajinder Kumar son of Mahinderpal Singh along with his relative

Kulwant Singh son of Aatma Singh (petitioner) was bringing intoxicating

tablets in Swift car No.PB-05AN-4904 and if the barricading is laid, they

1 of 7

Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:136948

can be arrested along with the contraband. On completing the legal

requirements, the barricading was laid. Thereafter the car as informed

was stopped and the co-accused, Rajinder Kumar was apprehended by

the police whereas the petitioner-accused succeeded in fleeing from the

spot. On checking, 550 intoxicating tablets of Tapentadol Hydrochloride

were recovered. Co-accused Rajinder Kumar failed to produce any

licence for keeping these intoxicating tablets and thus, the FIR was

registered and co-accused Rajinder Kumar was arrested on the spot,

however the petitioner succeeded in escaping from the spot.

Apprehending his arrest, the petitioner approached the Court of learned

Judge, Special Court, Ferozepur praying for the grant of anticipatory bail.

However on hearing both the sides, the learned Judge, Special Court

Ferozepur finding no merit, dismissed the same vide his order dated

04.10.2024. Hence being aggrieved the petitioner is before this Court by

way of filing the present petition for the grant of anticipatory bail.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently contended

that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case. He has

submitted that the alleged recovery of 550 intoxicating tablets has been

made from co-accused, Rajinder Kumar and not from the petitioner. He

has submitted that neither the petitioner was present at the spot nor there

was any allegation made against him. He has submitted that though the

petitioner is the owner of the car from which the alleged contraband has

been recovered, however his car was borrowed by co-accused, namely,

Rajinder Kumar on the pretext of attending some function. He thus

2 of 7

Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:136948

submits that the petitioner has been implicated in this case being the

owner of the car. He has submitted that from the facts and circumstances,

it is apparent that no prima facie case is made out against the petitioner

and thus, he deserves to be granted anticipatory bail.

4. Notice of motion.

5. On asking of the Court, Mr. Tarun Aggarwal, Sr. DAG,

Punjab appears and accepts notice on behalf of the respondent-State. He

has opposed the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner.

He has submitted that the secret information was received against the

petitioner and co-accused Rajinder Kumar. He has submitted that 550

tablets of Tapentadol Hydrochloride were recovered from the car. He has

further submitted that co-accused, Rajinder Kumar was apprehended but

the petitioner was succeeded in fleeing from the spot. He has thus

submitted that no case for the grant of anticipatory bail is made out, and

thus the same be declined.

6. Heard.

7. On hearing learned counsel for the parties and perusing the

record, it is apparent that FIR in the present case has been registered on

the basis of secret information received. As per the record, secret

information was received qua the petitioner and co-accused, namely,

Rajinder Kumar. The case of the prosecution is that co-accused, namely,

Rajinder Kumar was arrested on the spot whereas the petitioner

succeeded in fleeing from there. On search of the car, 550 intoxicating

tablets were recovered from the same. The record of the case would

3 of 7

Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:136948

reveal that the petitioner is the owner of the car. The investigation of the

case is at threshold.

8. For the consideration of anticipatory bail, the statutory

parameters are given under Section 482(2) BNSS which reads as under:-

Direction for grant of bail to person apprehending arrest.

(1) Where any person has reason to believe that he may be arrested on an accusation of having committed a non-bailable offence, he may apply to the High Court or the Court of Session for a direction under this section that in the event of such arrest he shall be released on bail; and that Court may, after taking into consideration, inter alia, the following factors, namely:-

(i) the nature and gravity of the accusation;

(ii) the antecedents of the applicant including the fact as to whether he has previously undergone imprisonment on conviction by a Court in respect of any cognisable offence;

(iii) the possibility of the applicant to flee from justice; and

(iv) where the accusation has been made with the object of injuring or humiliating the applicant by having him so arrested, either reject the application forthwith or issue an interim order for the grant of anticipatory bail."

9. As per the law settled by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, in

Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia Vs. State of Punjab, AIR 1980 SC 1632, while

granting anticipatory bail, the Court is to maintain a balance between the

individual liberty and the interest of society. However, the interest of the

society would also prevail upon the right of personal liberty. The relevant

part of the judgment is as follows:-

"31. In regard to anticipatory bail, if the proposed accusation appears to stem not from motives of furthering the ends of

4 of 7

Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:136948

justice but from some ulterior motive, the object being to injure and humiliate the applicant by having him arrested, a direction for the release of the applicant on bail in the event of his arrest would generally be made. On the other hand, if it appears likely, considering the antecedents of the applicant, that taking advantage of the order of anticipatory bail he will flee from justice, such an order would not be made. But the converse of these propositions is not necessarily true. That is to say, it cannot be laid down as an inexorable rule that anticipatory bail cannot be granted unless the proposed accusation appears to be actuated by mala fides; and, equally, that anticipatory bail must be granted if there is no fear that the applicant will abscond. There are several other considerations, too numerous to enumerate, the combined effect of which must weigh with the court while granting or rejecting anticipatory bail. The nature and seriousness of the proposed charges, the context of the events likely to lead to the making of the charges, a reasonable possibility of the applicant's presence not being secured at the trial, a reasonable apprehension that witnesses will be tampered with and "the larger interests of the public or the state" are some of the considerations which the court has to keep in mind while deciding an application for anticipatory bail. The relevance of these considerations was pointed out in State v. Captain Jagjit Singh (1962) 3 SCR 622, which, though, was a case under the old Section 498 which corresponds to the present Section 439 of the Code. It is of paramount consideration to remember that the freedom of the individual is as necessary for the survival of the society as it is for the egoistic purposes of the individual. A person seeking anticipatory bail is still a free man entitled to the presumption of innocence. He is willing to submit to restraints on his freedom, by the acceptance of conditions

5 of 7

Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:136948

which the court may think fit to impose, in consideration of the assurance that if arrested, he shall be enlarged on bail."

10. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in State Vs. Anil Sharma,

(1997) 7SCC 187, held as under:-

"6.We find force in the submission of the CBI that custodial interrogation is qualitatively more elicitation oriented than questioning a suspect who is well ensconced with a favorable order under Section 438 of the Code. In a case like this effective interrogation of a suspected person is of tremendous advantage in disinterring many useful informations and also materials which would have been concealed. Success in such interrogation would elude if the suspected person knows that he is well protected and insulated by a pre-arrest bail order during the time he is interrogated. Very often interrogation in such a condition would reduce to a mere ritual. The argument that the custodial interrogation is fraught with the danger of the person being subjected to third-degree methods need not be countenanced, for, such an argument can be advanced by all accused in all criminal cases. The Court has to presume that responsible police officers would conduct themselves in a responsible manner and that those entrusted with the task of disinterring offences would not conduct themselves as offenders."

11. Weighing the facts of the case on the anvil of the law settled,

it is apparent that the complicity of the petitioner has been prima facie

found. The investigation is at its threshold. Thus, granting anticipatory

bail to the petitioner at this stage would scuttle the ongoing investigation.

6 of 7

Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:136948

12. In view of the overall facts and circumstances of the case,

the petitioner does not qualify for the grant of anticipatory bail and the

same is hereby dismissed. Nothing said herein shall be treated as an

expression of opinion on the merits of the case.

                                                    (RAJESH BHARDWAJ)
                                                          JUDGE
19.10.2024
rittu
             Whether speaking/reasoned          :     Yes/No
             Whether reportable                 :     Yes/No




                                7 of 7