High Court of Punjab and HaryanaCRM-M/41003/2022allowed

Rattan Singh@Rattan v. State Of Punjab

2022-12-02Mr. Justice Jasgurpreet Singh Puri6 pages

!" ! #$

%&'

!()!)*++,

%&'

, - . / / /

""#$%%&'%''

( ) !

""*'++%'%''

,-.

)

/ / 0 %12'

/ 0 ! 0 1 ! 2!

+ !

!#4' 0 !

- ! 1 0 & !

! !

! 1 ! ! 1 0 !" 1 00 - ! 0 01 1-0

5 1 ! !!0!

!1 +*) ! .

1 ! ! 0 /5 - ! /56 $' $* %$ '%''

!$4 '7'+89 6:

! $74*8 !'* 0 ! 9 !

3 :!;

It has been submitted by both the learned counsels for the petitioners that it is a case where the police on the basis of information had apprehended one co-accused, namely, Vaneet Kumar from whom there was a confiscation of 70 gms of opium and thereafter on the basis of disclosure statement of the aforesaid coaccused, both the present petitioners have been nominated. They submitted that the disclosure statement of a co-accused is not admissible in evidence per se and there is no other sufficient material available with the prosecution to connect the present petitioners to the present offence. They further submitted that thereafter in order to implicate the petitioners falsely, they have shown recovery of Rs.70,000/- from the

petitioner Rattan Singh and one pistol and four cartridges from the petitioner Manjinder Singh @ Bhular and also 1 Kg of opium not from the conscious possession of any of the petitioners but from the godown where they were stated to be sitting. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submitted that both the petitioners are not habitual offenders and are not involved in any other case except that one of the petitioners, namely Manjinder Singh @ Bhular was earlier involved in one case under Sections 364, 323, 324, 34, 120-B IPC and Section 25/54/59 of the Arms Act and it was due to the aforesaid reason only that the police has falsely implicated the petitioner but there is no other sufficient evidence available with the police.

They have further submitted that the provisions of Section 27-A of the NDPS Act were also added in the present case. Both the learned counsels for the petitioners further submitted that both the petitioners are in custody from 17.01.2022 and the police has already completed the investigation and thereafter even challan has been filed and now only one witness has been examined. They further submitted that the entire case is based upon the disclosure statement of a co-accused which is not admissible in evidence in view of the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in /+345)16/(()7+26 '%'$8$9 09$ and, therefore, the rigour of Section 37 of the NDPS Act will not apply in the present case.

Section 27-A of the NDPS Act were later on added, the rights of the petitioners have been prejudicially affected.

On the other hand, ,-.

) stated that it is correct that both the petitioners are in custody from 17.01.2022 and one witness has been examined. He has submitted that it is also correct that both the petitioners are not habitual offenders and are not involved in any other case except for the petitioner Manjinder Singh @ Bhular who is involved in one case under Section 364, 323, 324, 34, 120-B IPC and Section 25/54/59 of the Arms Act. He has further submitted that it is correct that the names of both the petitioners were nominated on the basis of disclosure statement of the co-accused. He ha

opposed the grant of bail to the petitioners on the ground that after the nomination of the petitioners there was a recovery of Rs.70,000/- from petitioner Rattan Singh which was drug money and from the other petitioner Manjinder Singh @ Bhular there was recovery of one country made pistol and 4 cartridges and that was the reason as to why the provisions of Section 27-A of the NDPS Act and the Arms were invoked.

I have heard learned counsel for the parties. The investigation of the case has been completed and thereafter charges have been framed and one witness has been examined. Both the petitioners have faced incarceration for more than 10 months. Both the petitioners are stated to be not involved in any other case except for the petitioner Manjinder Singh @ Bhular who was involved in the aforementioned case. The confiscated quantity from the co-accused, who was arrested on the spot was only 70 gms of opium and the alleged recovery from the godown where the petitioners were sitting was 1 Kg

of opium and even collectively it does not fall under the category of commercial quantity. Since the provisions of Section 27-A of the NDPS Act have been added, the effect of Section 37 of the NDPS has considered. Both the petitioners have been nominated on the basis of disclosure statement of the co-accused. It has been so stated by the learned counsel for the parties that the money which is stated to be Rs.70,000/- allegedly recovered from the petitioner Rattan Singh is concerned, that was the money belonging to him and at this stage it cannot be termed as drug money because that is a matter of trial which can be seen at the time of adducing of evidence.

So far as the recovery of pistol and 4 cartridges from the petitioner Manjinder Singh @ Bhular is concerned, the same is also a matter of trial because learned counsel for the petitioner has specifically denied the same and has stated that it was because of the existence of the earlier case in which he was involved that the police has falsely implicated him. No other sufficient material has come forward from the State except that the name of the petitioners were nominated on the basis of disclosure statement of a co-accused and thereupon recovery from godown. In view of the background of the petitioners, custody and the other factors, this Court is of the view that at least at this stage there are reasons to believe that the petitioners are not guilty of the offence.

Apart from the above, it is not the case of the State that in case both the petitioners are released on bail then they may repeat the offence or they may abscond from justice. Therefore, both the conditions for making a departure from the bar contained under Section 37 of the NDPS Act remain satisfied. Both the petitioners had earlier filed bail petitions before this Court but had withdrawn the same in the month of July 2022 at t stage.

8 according to the learned counsel for the parties, one witness has been examined and, therefore, present successive second bail application would be maintainable. Therefore, without commenting anything on the merits of the case, this Court deems it fit and proper to grant the concession of regular bail to both the petitioners. Consequently, 1 3 ! < - ! <:- !!

2 0 ! -0 ! 1

! !)*)79)1 0 = . > <6 = > <6