Thana Singh v. State Of Punjab

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT

CHANDIGARH CRM-M-34454-2022 (O&M) Date of Decision: 26.08.2022 THANA SINGH ... Petitioner

Versus

STATE OF PUNJAB ... Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARNARESH SINGH GILL

Present:

Mr. Navinder Jit Singh Dandiwal, Advocate for the petitioner.

HARNARESH SINGH GILL, J.(Oral) Through this petition, the petitioner seeks anticipatory bail in case bearing FIR No.144 dated 29.06.2022, registered under Section 18 of the NDPS Act, at Police Station City Moga, District Moga. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has falsely been involved in the present case; that the petitioner has been indicted in the present case on the basis of the disclosure statement of coaccused, namely, Amrik Singh @ Meeka,; that the alleged recovery of 1.5 Kg opium was effected from the co-accused and that nothing was/is to be recovered from the petitioner.

Notice of motion.

On the asking of this Court, Mr. Subhash Godara, Additional Advocate General, Punjab, accepts notice on behalf of the respondentState and submits that the petitioner has specifically been named by coaccused, namely, Amrik Singh @ Meeka, from whom the recovery was effected and that, if granted the concession of anticipatory bail, the petitioner would indulge himself in similar crime again. AMAN JAIN 2022.08.29 10:28 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment

CRM-M-34454-2022 (O&M) -2I have heard the learned counsel for the parties. The NDPS Act is a self-contained statute which specifically deals with menace of drugs. Stringent provisions have been provided therein for dealing with such cases. The ground that the petitioner was only named in the disclosure statement of the co-accused in itself cannot be the sole consideration for grant of pre-arrest bail. A deeper probe is required to unearth the modus operandi and chain of supply. Further, as to whether it is a case of false implication or not, would be a subject matter of investigation.

The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Criminal Appeal No.1005 of 2002 titled State of Haryana Vs. Samarth Kumar, decided on 20.07.2022, has held that advantage of the fact that no recovery was/is to be effected from the petitioner and that the petitioner has been indicted on the disclosure statement of the co-accused, as held in Tofan Singh Vs. State of Tamil Nadu, (2021) 4 SCC 1, can be taken into consideration while dealing with the regular bail application or at the time of final hearing after conclusion of the trial.

In view of the above, no ground is made out to grant the concession of anticipatory bail to the petitioner. Dismissed.

26.08.2022 (HARNARESH SINGH GILL) Aman Jain JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned :

Yes/No Whether reportable :

Yes/No AMAN JAIN 2022.08.29 10:28 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment