HC grants pre-arrest bail to NDPS accused as no recovery of contraband was effected from him & he was only involved on basis of disclosure statement of co-accused

Read Order: Ram Singh @ Ramu @ Ramu Siteka v. State of Punjab

Monika Rahar

Chandigarh, January 5, 2022: While dealing with a bail plea, the Punjab and Haryana High Court, has reiterated that if no recovery of narcotic substance is made from the accused person and the charges against him are framed solely on the basis of a disclosure statement made by his co-accused from whom contraband substances were recovered, then the accused person should be granted the benefit of pre-arrest bail.  

The Bench of Justice Vikas Bahl was dealing with a petition filed under Section 438 of the Cr.P.C. for seeking anticipatory/ pre-arrest bail in an FIR registered against the accused under Sections 21 & 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985. 

The petitioner’s counsel argued that no recovery was made from the petitioner and that he was only implicated on the basis of the disclosure statement made by his co-accused from whom 10 grams of heroin was recovered. It was also argued that the recovery would not fall under the category of commercial quantity and was marginally higher than a smaller quantity. 

The Counsel cited the judgments in Mewa Singh v. State of Punjab (CRMM-12051-2020) and Daljit Singh v. State of Haryana (CRM-M-12997-2020) to argue that if a person has only been proceeded against on the basis of disclosure statement of co-accused and no recovery has been effected from the petitioner, then he should be granted the benefit of anticipatory bail.

This bail plea was opposed by the State counsel on the ground that the petitioner’s presence was needed to investigate the source of the contraband recovered. 

The Court found substance in the case argued by the petitioner and keeping in view the law laid down in Mewa Singh’s case (Supra) and Daljit Singh’s case (Supra), the Court said, “Keeping in view the above-said facts and circumstances, more so, the fact that no recovery has been effected from the petitioner and he has only been involved on the basis of disclosure statement made by co-accused without there being any other connecting evidence and even the alleged recovery from the co-accused is 10 grams of heroin would not fall in the category of commercial quantity inasmuch as a commercial quantity of heroin is 250 grams and in fact the said recovery of 10 grams of heroin is marginally higher than the small quantity of 5 grams of heroin… this Court deems it appropriate that the present petition deserves to be allowed.”

Accordingly, the petition was allowed and the petitioner was directed to be released on bail in the event of his arrest, subject to certain bail conditions.