Ranjodh Singh @ Jodha v. State Of Punjab

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-57996-2024 Date of decision: November 21st, 2024 Ranjodh Singh @ Jodha .....Petitioner

Versus

State of Punjab .....Respondent

CORAM:

HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANJARI NEHRU KAUL

Present:

Mr. Ajay Pal Singh Rehan, Advocate for the petitioner.

MANJARI NEHRU KAUL, J. (ORAL) Petitioner is seeking the concession of anticipatory bail in FIR No.70 dated 23.10.2024 under Sections 21, 29 of the NDPS Act, registered at Police Station Qadian, Police District Batala, District Gurdaspur.

2.

Learned counsel for the petitioner, inter alia, contends that a recovery of 20 grams of heroin was allegedly affected from co-accused Jarmandeep Singh; during the interrogation of co-accused Jarmandeep Singh, he allegedly suffered a disclosure statement nominating the petitioner as being the supplier of the recovered contraband. It has been argued by the learned counsel that the disclosure statement on the basis of which the petitioner has been arraigned as an accused holds little evidentiary value and clearly hints towards his false implication in the present case.

3.

On a pointed query put to the learned counsel as to whether the petitioner has any previous criminal antecedents, he has fairly conceded that the petitioner is involved in two other cases under the PUNEET SACHDEVA 2024.11.21 16:42 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh

CRM-M-57996-2024 -2NDPS Act, in which he is on bail.

4.

I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the relevant material on record.

5.

No doubt, disclosure statement does not have much evidentiary value but at this stage while deciding the prayer for anticipatory bail, the previous criminal antecedents of the petitioner cannot be ignored since it is a matter of record that he is involved in two other cases under the NDPS Act. Prima facie, it is evident that the petitioner has misused the concession of bail which has been extended to him in the other cases registered against him under the NDPS Act, and that he is a habitual offender.

6.

In the facts and circumstances as enumerated hereinabove, this Court is not inclined to extend the extraordinary concession of anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

7.

The instant petition stands dismissed.

8.

However, it is made clear that anything observed hereinabove shall not be construed to be an expression of opinion on the merits of the case.

November 21st, 2024 (MANJARI NEHRU KAUL) Puneet JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned :

Yes Whether reportable :

No PUNEET SACHDEVA 2024.11.21 16:42 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh