Suraj Bhan v. State Of Haryana

-1IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of decision : November 29, 2022 Suraj Bhan ...... Petitioner

Versus

State of Haryana ...... Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE PANKAJ JAIN *** Present :-Mr. Arpandeep Narula, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Sumit Jain, Addl. Advocate General, Haryana. *** PANKAJ JAIN, J. (ORAL) Apprehending his arrest in FIR No.977 dated 2.11.2022, registered for offences punishable under Section 20 of NDPS Act, 1985 registered at Police Station City Sirsa, District Sirsa the petitioner has preferred this petition under Section 438 Cr.P.C. seeking pre-arrest bail.

As per the prosecution version one Vishal was apprehended by the police party carrying a back bag. In compliance of the mandatory provisions he was searched. The said search lead to recovery of 1 kg. 500 grams of ganja. Said Vishal is stated to have nominated the present petitioner to be the source of such contraband and claimed that he was merely a daily wager employed by the present petitioner to sell ganja on daily wages of Rs.500/-. Learned counsel for the petitioner has emphatically argued that in view of

-2the ratio of law laid down in Tofan Singh Vs. State of Tamil Nadu 2021 (4) SCC 1. such disclosure at the hands of the co-accused Vishal cannot be read to drive home offence against the petitioner. He further submits that he has been denied relief of pre-arrest bail on the basis of another case registered against the petitioner in FIR No.617 of 2020 under Section 20 of NDPS Act which as per him, has also been registered against the petitioner by using the same modus operandi and in the same police station. The contention thus, raised that the false implication of the petitioner in the present case cannot be ruled out. Mr. Sumit Jain, Addl. Advocate General, Haryana on advance notice has put in appearance and submits that the petitioner is a habitual offender and there is an another FIR against him. He further submits that another FIR in the same police station is not unusual and the same itself will be not be enough to say that the petitioner has been falsely implicated.

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record of the case.

The law with respect to the application of ratio of law laid down in Tofan Singh's case (supra) stands clarified by the Apex Court in the case of State of Haryana Vs. Samrath
     




 


 
 
 



    

            



    
 


     

-3-   

    

         

          

  

 

              



                  

    

      !



  

          

   "

Keeping in view the nature of allegations levelled against the petitioner, this Court does not find it to be a fit case for grant of pre-arrest bail. Resultantly, the present petition is dismissed. However, keeping in view the fact that the petitioner has been nominated on the disclosure statement made by the co-accused, liberty is granted to the petitioner to surrender before the concerned court and to seek admission on regular bail, if so advised. In case, the petitioner surrenders and opts to file an application seeking the admission on bail, the same shall be dealt with in accordance with law.

( PANKAJ JAIN ) JUDGE November 29, 2022 archana Whether speaking/reasoned Yes Whether Reportable :

No