High Court of Punjab and HaryanaCRM-M/45850/2024dismissed

Resham Singh v. State Of U.T. Chd

2024-10-04Mr. Justice Harpreet Singh Brar10 pages

#$%$!&'

( ( %) * +$&,) ((( $$!& - . -%/% +

(( ) &0$, -) ((( %1!&0 & '

23 ( + +

Present:

Mr. Edward Augustine George, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Manish Bansal, Public Prosecutor, U.T. Chandigarh and Mr. Rajiv Vij, Additional Public Prosecutor, U.T. Chandigarh. ******* +

This is second petition preferred by the petitioner under Section 482 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short 'BNSS') seeking anticipatory bail in the case bearing FIR No.476 dated 25.12.2023 under Sections 21, 22, 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short 'NDPS Act'), registered at Police Station Sector 36, Chandigarh.

Succinctly, the facts, as alleged, are that on 25.12.2023, the police party, headed by SI Baljit Singh, had put up a checkpoint at the dividing road from Sector 52 to village Kajheri. Around 05:25 p.m., one person riding an Activa scooter arrived at the said location, but tried to escape, when he saw the police party ahead. On seeing, SI Baljit Singh approached him and the said person pulled out one transparent polythene pouch from the right pocket of his tracksuit and tried to throw it away. However, SI Baljit Singh caught his hand and recovered the polythene pouch. On instruction, Constable Ashok brought the Drug Detection Kit from the car and the contents of the polythene pouch were found to be positive for amphetamine, weighing 54.72 gm.

Subsequently, the said person identified himself as Mohammed Imtiyaz and on his disclosure statement, one Gagan was arrested, who further made a disclosure that he bought the contraband from one Sukhpreet @ Preet and the petitioner. Sukhpreet@ Preet was arrested on 05.01.2024 and an Etios car, a Swift car, mobile phones, Rs.9,000/B and 22 gm of heroin were recovered from his flat. On the same day, Sukhpreet @ Preet made a disclosure statement, wherein he confessed that he and the petitioner were the suppliers of the said contraband.

Learned counsel for the petitioner, contends that the petitioner has been nominated in the FIR (

) solely on the basis of the

6 disclosure statement made by coBaccused, wherein he portrayed him to be the kingpin of a drug syndicate. It is settled law that disclosure statement made before a police officer is not admissible. Further, no recovery has been effected from the petitioner. Learned counsel further submits that the petitioner slipped from the stairs and suffered multiple injuries including fractures of the vertebrae. The petitioner was treated at the Government MultiBspeciality Hospital, Sector 16, Chandigarh and in this regard, medical record is available on record at Annexure PB6 and he was recommended bed rest for a period of six months. Learned counsel places reliance upon judgments rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in

, # $ % &

'"'$

' decided on 24.03.2023 % ($ % & )'

'decided on 01.05.2023,% + $ , & "" $

' decided on 17.05.2023 -. +$ % & ''

'decided on 12.07.2023, %/0.+$ %

& 1*!"$

'decided on 13.09.2023 2 $ % & )*

' decided on 02.04.2024, . 3+$4 & 1 !$

decided on 12.01.2023,(/(

+$ &

( -2/( $4 & 1!$

' 3 0 $ # & !1!$

' and by this Court in($ % #5#5 *11

and# %($ % #5#5*)

as well as the order 17.11.2023 passed in #5#5 )""6!5

'7($ %and order dated 02.05.2024 passed in #5#5 1!

6( $ %.

Learned State counsel places on record the affidavit filed by Mr. Ketan Bansal, IPS, Superintendent of Police, Crime Intelligence and Head Quarters, U.T. Chandigarh indicating compliance of the directions issued by this Court in 0 $ %in #5#5 ))* !5

' 5.

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the case with their able assistance. 6.

The affidavit filed by the Superintendent of Police is taken on record and a perusal of the same indicates that warrants of arrest dated 06.09.2024 could not be executed against the petitioner, as he was concealing himself from the police. In compliance with the directions

issued by this Court in 0 's case

proclamation has been issued against the petitioner under Section 82 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short 'Cr.P.C.')/Section 84(2) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 vide order dated 03.10.2024 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Chandigarh. 7.

Further, this is the second attempt made by the petitioner to secure an anticipatory bail in the case stemming from FIR (

). The first petition was dismissed by this Court vide order dated 22.03.2024 by holding that custodial interrogation was necessary to unearth the

of the drug racket headed by the petitioner and the following order was passed: B

! "#$#

%& ' &()*+, -.

$/ " 00!+1$"

- & $", # & 2 !

' 3

& 3 4 ! /

44 '

/ "

% "& 3

' 3 4 '4 ' !3 $ "

&! ' &

&4 & 4

7 %& ! & ' & ! #

'% 5

3 675 /

% "&

3 /

8&4 4 !%&! "& 4 $ # &9 4 5

'* %!4& & ! 4' ! 3 3 % ! !6

& & ' & & !

3 4 ' 9!

44 3 $ : 3 8 : +1$"- 94& !

# ! &

4 ' ! % &43

& !4 & &

'! &%

3 4'

! )43!!3

3 '9; "

# <" ')

! $ = > *

; "

24 -

# + 0

8 8.

The present petition has been moved in spite of the fact that no change in the circumstances has occurred since the dismissal of the first petition for anticipatory bail. Pertinently, a three Judge Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in 8 $+

16' has held as follows:

- ! !

4 '

& 3 '

+ & & 3 4 &

! &

4% !

4 '

: '

%& ' 6

Reliance can also be placed upon the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in ( 3 % % /..72

) !

wherein it was held that ordinarily, the arguments made previously cannot be reBagitated, as it would lead to loss of confidence in the process of administration of justice as well as open gates for forum hunting.

10.

Further, a Full Bench of Calcutta High Court in # 8 9$4

' !!6 has categorically held that entertaining second application for anticipatory bail would amount to review or reBconsideration of the earlier order passed by a Court with competent jurisdiction, while the accusation remains

unchanged. Since the allegations remain the same, in any event, the same reasons for apprehension of arrest cannot be reconsidered. Ergo, the second application for anticipatory bail, even if new circumstances arises after rejection or disposal of earlier application, the second application would not be maintainable. Speaking through Justice M.H.S. Ansari, the following was observed:

)!. ! 3 "!# $

# 9&# # !"

@ % & "!# 0 "!# 3

)!& !

'4 &&4

! 4&&(

!& )

+ 9 9 99 9 9 ..9 :

: 3 2:$ ;% :9

. &:

!&! 452 = A ##2*"#B 4 &# B &

!& # ' ' !43 ' # ! :

& 3 &

& ?

11.

In a similar matter, a Full Bench of the Rajasthan High Court in 8 % $ %

speaking through Justice Shiv Kumar Sharma, made the following observations:

9 BC

"#$# ! ! &!

3 3 @ 43 & ! 3 3 ! & 3

@ '

& !3

4 '

' "

&0-

&B 12.

Reliance is in this regard can also be placed on the judgment passed by this Court in .$ %in #5#5)"

6"$

' wherein it was held that the second petition for the relief under Section 482 of BNSS (earlier Section 438 Cr.P.C.) is not maintainable, if no evident change in circumstances is indicated since dismissal of the first petition for the same relief. 13.

In view of the settled law, once the relief of anticipatory bail is denied to the petitioner in his first attempt before this Court and there is no change in the circumstances, as such, the second petition for the same relief under Section 482 of BNSS (earlier Section 438 Cr.P.C.) cannot be entertained merely by narrating the same facts to this Court with a new twist or by making fresh arguments by introducing new developments or material. Thus, the present petition being a second application under Section 482 of BNSS (earlier Section 438 Cr.P.C.) is not maintainable.

Moreover, the factual background of the matter at hand does not reflect any relevant change that would merit interference by this Court. 14.

Accordingly, the present petition is dismissed. 15.

All the pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.

;

04.10.2024 4

Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No