Kuldeep Singh @ Laddi v. State Of Haryana

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT

CHANDIGARH CRM-M-21485-2024 Date of decision: 07.08.2024 KULDEEP SINGH @ LADDI ....Petitioner V/s STATE OF HARYANA ....Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANJARI NEHRU KAUL

Present:

Mr. G.S.Sandhu, Advocate, for the petitioner. Ms. Trishanjali Sharma, DAG, Haryana.

***** MANJARI NEHRU KAUL, J. (ORAL) 1.

The petitioner is seeking the concession of anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Cr.P.C. in case FIR No.136 dated 10.04.2024 under Sections 15 and 18 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (Section 29 of the Act added later on) registered at Police Station Butana, District Karnal.

2.

On the last date of hearing i.e. on 01.05.2024, while noticing the following submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, this Court, had granted the concession of interim bail to the petitioner and asked him to join investigation:- "Learned counsel inter alia contends that the petitioner has clean antecedents as it is a matter of record that he is not involved in any other criminal case much less under the NDPS Act; the petitioner came to be nominated as an accused on the basis of a disclosure statement allegedly suffered by co-accused Daler Singh, from whom a recovery of 280 grams of Opium and 7 kgs 80 grams of poppy husk was affected pursuant to a POONAM RATHORE 2024.08.09 06:25 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

CRM-M-21485-2024 -2secret information received. Learned counsel has asserted that the petitioner was not even named in the secret information coupled with the fact that the evidentiary value of the disclosure statement, on the basis of which he has now been arraigned as an accused, is of a weak nature, his custodial interrogation would thus not be required." 3.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in compliance of order dated 01.05.2024, the petitioner has joined investigation and cooperated with the investigating agency.

4.

Learned State counsel, on instructions, does not dispute the factum of the petitioner having joined investigation and cooperated with the investigating agency. He, on further instructions, submits that the petitioner is not required for further investigation much less for his custodial interrogation.

5.

In view of the above, the petition is allowed and interim order dated 01.05.2024, is made absolute subject to the conditions laid down in Section 438(2) Cr.P.C.

6.

Needless to add, in case the petitioner misuses the concession of bail granted to him, the State would be at liberty to seek cancellation of the same.

(MANJARI NEHRU KAUL) JUDGE August 07, 2024 poonam Whether speaking/reasoned:

Yes/No Whether reportable:

Yes/No POONAM RATHORE 2024.08.09 06:25 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document