Punjab-Haryana High Court
Sukhwinder Singh Alias Kindu vs State Of Punjab on 21 January, 2025
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:008441
102
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CRM-M-64781-2024
Date of Decision:21.01.2025
Sukhwinder Singh @ Kindu ...Petitioner
Vs.
State of Punjab ...Respondent
Coram : Hon'ble Mr. Justice N.S.Shekhawat
Present: Mr. Jasvir Singh Dhaliwal, Advocate
for the petitioner.
Mr. I.P.S Sabharwal, DAG, Punjab.
***
N.S.Shekhawat J.
1. The petitioner has filed the present petition under Section 482 of
B.N.S.S with a prayer to grant anticipatory bail to him in case FIR No.69, dated
01.12.2024 under Sections 15,29,61,85 of NDPS Act, registered at Police
Station Fatehgarh Panjtoor, District Moga, Punjab (Annexure P-1).
2. The FIR in the present case was registered on the basis of the
statement made by Sunita Rani, SI/SHO and the same has been reproduced
below:-
"Officer Incharge, Police Station Fatehgarh Panjtur, "Fateh",
Today I SI/SHO alongwith ASI Jarnail Singh 788/Moga, ASI
Jasbir Singh 440/Moga, CT Kapil Yadav 839/Moga, CT Ishpreet
Singh 703/Moga, L/ct Rupinder Kaur 604/Moga were riding on
Government Vehicle bearing registration No. PB-29X-6635, whose
driver is HC Lakhvir Singh 1161/Moga, carrying alongwith laptop
and printer were departure towards the illaqa police station in
connection with patrolling and searching the suspected person,
when the police party was present at the grain market Lalihadi
1 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:008441
CRM-M-64781-2024 -2
while patrolling, then secret informer informed me I SI/SHO in
private that Veer Singh, Nishan Singh, sons of Bohar Singh,
residents of Madarpur, are in the habit of selling poppy seeds.
Today Veer Singh and Nishan Singh are present at their house in
village Madarpur. If their houses are raided now and interrogated
them, they can get the poppy seeds recovered themselves, because
they do not keep poppy seeds in their house, they keep them hidden
somewhere outside their house and from that place they sell poppy
seeds at different places. If the information is solid and reliable,
Veer Singh, Nishan Singh have committed the offence under
Sections 15, 61, 85 of NDPS Act. Therefore, a case has been send
to the Police Station for registration of case against Veer Singh,
Nishan Singh, son of Bohar Singh, resident of Madarpur through
female constable Rupinder Kaur No. 604/Moga. A case should be
registered and the FIR number should be informed and the
original Rukka and copy of the FIR should be sent to the police
station through female Constable Rupinder Kaur No. 604/Moga.
Special report should be issued. Information is being send to the
PCR Moga and Higher Officers. I SI/SHO alongwith other police
personnel departed for the place indicated by the informant.
Towards area: Dana Mandi Lalihadi at 01:50 PM, SD:- Sunita
Rani, SI/SHO".
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner has
not been named in the FIR nor there is any averment in the FIR, which connects
the petitioner with the commission of crime. Learned counsel further contends
that the petitioner is sought to be implicated in the present case on the basis of
the disclosure statement suffered by the co-accused and prerogative value of
such evidence is inherently weak. Learned counsel further contends that the
Kewal Singh, brother of the petitioner had contested the election for the post of
Sarpanch and Veer Singh, co-accused had contested the election for the post of
2 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:008441
CRM-M-64781-2024 -3
Panch. Thus, Veer Singh, co-accused was keeping grudge against the petitioner
due to political rivalry and the petitioner has been falsely involved in the
present case on the ground of said fact.
4. On advance notice, Mr. I.P.S Sabharwal, DAG, Punjab has
appeared on behalf of official respondent and submits that during the course of
investigation, sufficient incriminating evidence has been collected against the
petitioner. Learned State counsel further submits that four more cases under
the provisions of NDPS Act were ordered to be registered against the petitione
and the petitioner has been acquitted in one such case. However, the petitioner
is a habitual offender and deals in narcotics substance in the area. Apart from
that, learned State counsel has also relied upon the law laid down by the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of "State of Haryana Vs. Samarth
Kumar", 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 622, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as
follows:-
"4. The High Court decided to grant pre-arrest bail to the
respondents on the only ground that no recovery was
effected from the respondents and that they had been
implicated only on the basis of the disclosure
statement of the main accused Dinesh Kumar.
Therefore, reliance was placed by the High Court in
the majority judgment of this Court in Tofan Singh v.
State of Tamil Nadu reported in (2021) 4 SCC 1.
5. But, it is contended by the learned Additional
Advocate General appearing on behalf of the State of
Haryana that on the basis of the anticipatory bail
granted to the respondents, the Special Court was
constrained to grant regular bail even to the main
accused-Dinesh Kumar and he jumped bail.
Fortunately, the main accused-Dinesh Kumar has
3 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:008441
CRM-M-64781-2024 -4
again been apprehended. According to the learned
Additional Advocate General, the respondent in the
second of these appeals is also a habitual offender.
6. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
respondent in the first of these Appeals contends that
the State is guilty of suppression of the vital fact that
the respondent was granted regular bail after the
charge-sheet was filed and that therefore, nothing
survives in the appeal. But, we do not agree.
7. The order of the Special Court granting regular bail to
the respondents shows that the said order was passed
in pursuance of the anticipatory bail granted by the
High Court. Therefore, the same cannot be a ground to
hold that the present appeals have become
infructuous.
8. In cases of this nature, the respondents may be able to
take advantage of the decision in Tofan Singh v.
State of Tamil Nadu (supra), perhaps at the time of
arguing the regular bail application or at the time of
final hearing after conclusion of the trial."
5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the
record carefully.
6. From the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, it is
apparent that at this stage, police has already found sufficient evidence against
the present petitioner. Apart from that, the petitioner is a habitual offender and
in the past also, he was involved in four more cases of NDPS Act.
7. Thus, findings no merits, the present petition is ordered to be
dismissed.
(N.S.SHEKHAWAT)
21.01.2025 JUDGE
hitesh Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No
Whether reportable : Yes/No
4 of 4
