Punjab Singh vs State Of Punjab
2024 Latest Caselaw 17647 P&H

Punjab-Haryana High Court

Punjab Singh vs State Of Punjab on 23 September, 2024

                                     Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:126001
       CRM-M No. 47420-2024 (O&M)                           1


     IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH




                                             CRM-M No. 47420-2024 (O&M)
                                             Date of Decision: 23.09.2024

Punjab Singh                                                       .....Petitioner

                        versus

State of Punjab                                                     ....Respondent


CORAM:           HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHEEL NAGU, CHIEF JUSTICE


Present :       Mr. Sukhbir Maandi, Advocate, for the petitioner.

                Mr. Gagneshwar Walia, Addl. Advocate General, Punjab.

                                    ****

SHEEL NAGU, CHIEF JUSTICE (Oral)

The petitioner apprehends his arrest in respect of offences

punishable under Section 21 of the Narcotic Durgs and Psychotropic

Substance Act, 1985 in FIR No. 63 dated 28.07.2024 registered at Police

Station City Valtoha, District Tarn Taran, wherein 20 grams of Heroin was

recovered from the possession of co-accused Rajiv Kumar.

2. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that

implication of the petitioner is based on a confessional statement made by

co-accused Rajiv Kumar under Section 27 of the Evidence Act (Section 23 of

the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023). It is submitted that no recovery had

taken place from the petitioner.

3. On the other hand, learned State counsel objected to the

contention raised by learned counsel for the petitioner by relying upon a

judgment of the Apex Court in State of Haryana vs. Samarth Kumar 2022

Crl. Law Reporter (SC) 994, in which it is laid down that the benefit of

1 of 2

Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:126001

anticipatory bail is not available to an accused implicated on the basis of a

disclosure statement made by co-accused. It is submitted by the learned State

counsel that at best the petitioner can seek regular bail.

4. Since the investigation is pending and the possibility of further

evidence coming forth cannot be ruled out, this Court for the time being

declines to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner. Accordingly, the

application is dismissed.

                                                                                      (SHEEL NAGU)
                                                                                      CHIEF JUSTICE

23.09.2024
ravinder                      Whether speaking/reasoned                     √Yes/No
                              Whetherreportable                             Yes/No√




                                                          2 of 2