Read Order : Raju Tanwar v. State of Haryana 

Tulip Kanth

Chandigarh,December 8, 2021: The Punjab and Haryana High Court has observed that the petitioner was never ever apprehended at the spot and has been nominated as an accused on the basis of a disclosure statement, the admissibility and veracity of which would be debatable.

The petitioner in this case, had approached this Court seeking grant of regular bail in a case pertaining to an FIR, registered at Police Station Hisar Sadar, District Hisar, under Section 20 of NDPS Act.

The prosecution’s case, in nutshell, was that on May 15,2021 one Raju Mukherjee was apprehended by the police while in possession of 84 kgs of ‘Ganja’. It was further the case of prosecution that on May 15, 2021 said Raju Mukherjee suffered a disclosure statement and on the basis of which the petitioner-Raju Tanwar was arrested on May 20,2021.

From the petitioner’s side it was submitted that the petitioner had falsely been implicated in the instant case on the basis of an alleged disclosure statement which would not carry any evidentiary value.

On the contrary, the State counsel contended that since the petitioner had specifically been named by co-accused Raju Mukherjee from whose possession a huge quantity of ‘Ganja’ had been recovered, his complicity was clearly evident. It had been informed that the petitioner as on date had been behind bars since the last about six and a half months and that he happened to be involved in one more case registered under NDPS Act. It had also been informed that although charges had been framed, but none of the cited 11 prosecution witnesses had been examined so far.

“It is not in dispute that the petitioner was never ever apprehended at the spot and has been nominated as an accused on the basis of a disclosure statement, the admissibility and veracity of which would be debatable”, said the Bench of Justice Gurvinder Singh Gill.

The Bench went on to note that  although, the State counsel had informed that the petitioner is involved in one more case under NDPS Act but the counsel for the petitioner had submitted that the said involvement was fabricated after he was taken in custody in the instant case. The petitioner in any case had been behind bars for a substantial period of six and a half months. Conclusion of trial was likely to consume time as not even a single prosecution witness out of the cited 11 prosecution witnesses had been examined so far.

In these circumstances, the Court held that further detention of the petitioner would not serve any useful purpose. The petition, as such, was accepted and the petitioner was ordered to be released on bail subject to his furnishing bail bonds to the satisfaction of the Trial Court/Chief Judicial Magistrate/Duty Magistrate concerned.

0 CommentsClose Comments

Leave a comment