Accused can’t be compelled to give statement that would implicate him in crime, observes Punjab and Haryana High Court

Read Order: Jagbeer alias Jaggi v. State of Haryana 

LE Staff

Chandigarh, August 18, 2021: While granting anticipatory bail to a man facing charges under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act (NDPS), 1985, the Punjab and Haryana High Court  has observed that investigators cannot compel an accused to give a statement that would implicate him in the crime.

The case pertains to the petitioner, Jasbeer alias Jaggi, who is accused of offences under the NDPS Act as per an FIR dated June 24, 2021, registered at Police Station Sadar Ratia, District Fatehabad, Haryana.

On July 7, 2021, the High Court had allowed his anticipatory bail plea in this case on the grounds that no recovery of contraband narcotics was made from him, the quantity of prohibited drugs recovered from his co-accused was below the commercial quantity, and that the petitioner was implicated in the case only on the basis of the disclosure statement of the co-accused. The HC also noted that there is no other criminal case registered against the petitioner.

The HC had issued notice to the Haryana government and directed the petitioner to join investigation in the case.

When the case next came up for hearing before the HC on August 16, 2021, the State counsel submitted, on instructions from police, that the petitioner had joined investigation but was not co-operating much as he was not disclosing from where he obtained the contraband in question that is stated to have been recovered from his co-accused Amritpal as per the FIR.

To this, the bench of Justice Amol Rattan Singh said, “In the opinion of this court such a statement being given by the petitioner would obviously amount to implicating himself and therefore, he cannot be compelled to make any such statement”.

The Bench further said, “Consequently, without making any comment whatsoever on the actual merits of the case, but the petitioner having been arraigned as an accused in the FIR only on basis of an alleged disclosure statement made in police custody by the aforesaid Amritpal (as per the case of the investigating agency), and with no recovery at all made from the petitioner himself, in my opinion the doubt cast on the petitioners’ involvement (only at this stage for the purpose of this petition), would entitle him to bail even in terms of such clause (ii) of clause (b) of Section 37(1) of the NDPS Act, 1985”.

The bench thus allowed his petition and made absolute the anticipatory bail granted on July 7 subject to terms and conditions such as that he would join the probe in the matter. 

The HC, however, clarified that it was not making any comment whatsoever on the merits of the case.