Jitender Singh v. State Of Haryana

CRM-M-40134-2024 -1IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-40134-2024 Decided on : 03.12.2024 Jitender Singh ...... Petitioner

Versus

State of Haryana ...... Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANJARI NEHRU KAUL Present : Mr. Ravinder Banger, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Rahul Moahn, Sr. DAG, Haryana.

**** Manjari Nehru Kaul, J.

The present petition has been filed under Section 438 Cr.PC, for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner in case FIR No.86 dated 18.06.2024 under Sections 21(b) of NDPS Act registered at Police Station Ismailabad District Kurukshetra. 2.

On 20.08.2024, 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 secret information was received qua the involvement of coaccused Amarjit Singh in drug trafficking; pursuant to the alleged secret information, co-accused Amarjit Singh was apprehended with 35 grams of Heroin. Learned counsel submits that admittedly no secret information was received SONIA BURA 2024.12.04 16:14 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

CRM-M-40134-2024 -2qua the petitioner nor is it the case of the prosecution that the petitioner was present along with the co-accused Amarjit Singh when the alleged recovery was affected. It has also been argued by the learned counsel that the petitioner came to be nominated as an accused on the basis of a disclosure statement allegedly suffered by coaccused Amarjit Singh, who stated that the recovered contraband had been supplied by the petitioner. It has been asserted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the disclosure statement, on the basis of which he has been arraigned as an accused in the present case, has very weak evidentiary value and all this needs to be appreciated in the wake of petitioner not being involved in any other case under the NDPS Act."

3.

Learned counsel for the State submits that in compliance of order dated 20.08.2024, petitioner has joined the investigation and cooperated with the investigating officer. He, on further instructions, submitted that the petitioner is not required for custodial interrogation. 4.

In view of the above, present petition is allowed and interim order dated 20.08.2024 is made absolute subject to the conditions as envisaged in Section 438(2) Cr.PC/482(2) of BNSS. (MANJARI NEHRU KAUL) 03.12.2024 JUDGE sonia Whether speaking/reasoned:

Yes/No Whether reportable :

Yes/No SONIA BURA 2024.12.04 16:14 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document