High Court of Punjab and HaryanaCRM-M/26385/2021allowed

Chain Singh v. State Of Haryana

2021-09-27Mr. Justice Amol Rattan Singh6 pages

-1IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision:27.09.2021 Chain Singh ...... Petitioner

Versus

State of Haryana ......... Respondent

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMOL RATTAN SINGH

Present:

Mr. Rajkapoor Malik, Advocate, for the petitioner.

***** AMOL RATTAN SINGH, J. (ORAL) ase heard via

"#$

#!" %!&'

( " ) !" $!! !" $!! * !"

!$!

# %$ +,- .. ! /

" # !!

0!! -%1 !!2!"

!" !" 33

$% "# %0! 45 !" 1 0! 6784 !"0! 6 !"1 0! 678" # ! 5

!"$!! "# * !* !%! "!"!"3 $"

%3# $$"7 !" !" 0$ 9%2!" 4:% ' 5!

3!! # !

!;#% !" !! !" !!# !"!

-2- %!4 3 $$ ! "# !"5 !"!!" 3!" 3 %3# !! !"!"!

% !!!

"#$$" 78*

3*4%$ ! 3! !!!

"##!" $

$*!<*"# !%$!"!5 = !"! !" 3 %3#

% %#! # !

#%!!"3 ! !" '% 4 !" 3!"$!! !!!

"# %" !"!"3

% !!3!!"!

!""$%" !" 3* 3!"$!! 5 "% >% ! 3* "!"!" %!%

*$ !" 3 #!"+,- !" !"# ! !"3

= %$$ !!"!%3!"$ !

!"+,-!

%#3!!"!

!"%!"

!"+,-40,1

"0"5 $

!!",0! 2!" ! !!" !" !!!"!"

3! $"

# ! 3#%! 3#

! 3 3!

3!"3!"$

$!!"!

!!!

!" !"!!

# % !!

% !"

!" ! 3

!":!

! %"$

$! %!" !"!!"!% !"

!#!" !" ! 3!

"%%$!"$

!"$

3 %3#"

" !

"!"$

""" #$3!

!! !"$ ! !"$ % !" !! !"!!" " #$ !

!" !" !

" 3

% !!3!$

% !!"$!! ! 3 !

!" * !" %!

-3- ?$ >%!

"3 "!"!" !"3 ! !!"$!! " !"!

! "" !%! !"! ,! # !!"! 0!! " "3!

%!"!!"$!! "#!

%"! $"

! #! !" !" !

% $$" !" 78 * 3* " ! !"

!3# @ !"! %3! !

$! !" " %#! !"3 ! !" '

% !" #$

!"!"0 2!"

! "

!$ !

:!" !"

! !" $

$! !"! !! !

" $$"!" '% !"$!! !"

2!"1 !!2!" /

! "

#% %!A#!"0 : !"" ! !""3!

! !" ""

33# !"$

$! %!

##!

3 8/

,!"3 " !"

%!3* 33! !"!% 3!

!" #%! !" !"$!! "!

! %#!!!" !!"3 !" %!4 !" $%$

!" $!! 5: % ! !3 %#'

% 45 % 4#5 %#'

! 4 5 0! / !"1 0 ! 678!"$!! !!

!! !"8

%$ "3

%"!!

# !" "

# # " % ">%!# %!#

!" ! ! !" ! <, > !! "

3$ !"

! !$% !0!

/74 5 !" ,!" !! !!%

!"$!! !! "

$$# !" , > !!

-4- 33!

!" %33 !" ! !

"3!

"3 !! !3 !" !" %! %!

B Thereafter on 06.09.2021 the following order had been passed by this court:- ( % %!!

!" $

#!" %!!

!"0%$!!

2!" ! / 7

" # "" !

#!* ="

%" 0!! $ !

%!!"!

$ !" $ !

!"! !"

$$"!!" $ ! $!" +,-

!"!!" !

%" !"" !" $

/ 3 ! - !"!"!!"

!"$

#!" C

2!" ! !" ! !3 !" $!!

!"!!" ! !"3 $"

!"$

!!!

"# !C

2!"" !##!" 0%$!!

. 6

="0%$!!

2!" !!

!" !!"!"

!"$

!!!

"#$$"!" C

2!" !"!!3>% ! !"+,- !!!" ! "!"!"

2!"!!"!

!3 ,!3 !

!%!

!":!! "B Pursuant thereto, an additional affidavit has been filed by the Superintendent of Police, Kaithal, dated 22.09.2021, which is ordered to be taken

-5on record.

In the said affidavit, it is stated that as regards the co-accused of the petitioner, i.e. Gurpreet Kaur @ Gopi, Gopal Singh and Virender @ Ladi, the mobile tower locations of these persons were found either in Rajasthan or in Madhya Pradesh or in District Mohindergarh in Haryana, on 23.03.2021. However, one of the mobile numbers shown to be used by Gurpreet Kaur @ Gopi, she is stated to have been present (on the basis of that mobile phones' location) possibly in the area of village Chuharpur (District Jind) - Kithana (District Kaithal) at 07:17 p.m., about 6 to 7 kms. aware from the place (alleged) of occurrence.

Learned counsel for the petitioner however submits that all three of them, i.e. Gopal Singh, Gurpreet Kaur @ Gopi and Virender @ Ladi are alleged to have been all arrested together in a Swift Dezire car near Kithana, District Kaithal; but with Gopal Singhs' mobile tower location shown to be in Rajasthan at 05:08 p.m. on 24.03.2021, the SP has very correctly stated in paragraph 3 of his additional affidavit that as per the said mobile tower locations it cannot be stated that their location was near village Kithana at the time in question. By this petition, as already noticed, the petitioner has been arraigned as an accused on an alleged disclosure statement made by the aforesaid co-accused in police custody, but with him being in touch with them telephonically and therefore stated to be also involved in the sale/purchase etc. of contraband, as is stated to have been recovered from them.

Keeping in view the aforesaid additional affidavit filed by the SP,

-6Kaithal, though of course it needs to be noticed by this court that mobile phone locations cannot be taken to be conclusive proof of the presence or non-presence of a person in a particular area, with that person quite easily having left his/her mobile phone at a different place altogether and having come to a different place, yet in my opinion, the petitioner has made out a case by which he should be admitted to bail absolutely, even in terms of Section 37 (1) (b) (ii) of the NDPS Act, 1985, looking at the fact that whereas all his co-accused are stated to have been arrested together, one of them (Gopal Singh) seemingly was in Rajasthan at that time, his mobile number having received a call in Rajasthan at 05:08 p.m. on 24.03.2021, as per the chart depicted on page 4 of the SPs' additional affidavit. Hence, the order passed on 14.07.2021 is made absolute on the same terms and conditions, !"

%!3*%!" 33! !"!% 3!

!" September 27, 2021 (AMOL RATTAN SINGH) dinesh JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned Yes Whether Reportable No