← Library
High Court of Punjab and HaryanaCRM-M/10795/2024dismissed

Harmanpreet Singh Alias Harman Alias Chibba v. State Of Punjab

2024-02-29Mr. Justice Harpreet Singh Brar2 pages

CRM-M No.10795 of 2024   

   

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT

CHANDIGARH 102.

CRM-M No.10795 of 2024 (O&M) Date of Decision:29.02.2024 Harmanpreet Singh @ Harman @ Chibba ... Petitioner Versus State of Punjab ... Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARPREET SINGH BRAR

Present:

Mr. Navjot Singh, Advocate for the petitioner.

*** HARPREET SINGH BRAR, J. (ORAL) 1.

The present petition has been filed under Section 438 Cr.P.C. grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner in FIR No.33 dated 14.02.2024 (Annexure P1) under Sections 21 (c) and 29 of the NDPS Act, 1985 registered at Police Station Chheharta, District Police Commissionerate, Amritsar, Punjab. 2.

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner inter alia contends that the petitioner has been nominated as an accused only on the basis of disclosure statement made by the co-accused, which is hit by Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, as it has no evidentiary value in the eyes of law. There is nothing on record to prove conscious possession of the petitioner over the alleged contraband, which was recovered from the conscious possession of the coaccused. 3.

Mr. Subhash Godara, Addl. A.G., Punjab appears on advance notice for the respondent-State and opposes grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner on the ground that he is involved in two more cases, out of which one is PANKAJ KUMAR 2024.03.01 17:25 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document

CRM-M No.10795 of 2024   

    registered under the provisions of the NDPS Act. He is the supplier of the contraband recovered from the co-accused and as such, his custodial interrogation will be required to ascertain the source of contraband and also the modus operandi adopted by the petitioner in selling the same. 4.

Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after perusing the record, this Court finds no ground to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner, in view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State by the Inspector of Police Vs. B. Ramu passed in SLP (Crl.) No.8137 of 2022 decided on 12.02.2024.

5.

Dismissed.

(HARPREET SINGH BRAR) JUDGE February 29, 2024 Pankaj* Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether reportable Yes/No PANKAJ KUMAR 2024.03.01 17:25 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document