Read Order: Krishan v. State of Haryana
LE Correspondent
Chandigarh, June 15, 2022: The Punjab and Haryana High Court has recently refused to grant the concession of regular bail to the petitioner who was roped in a drugs matter involving the recovery of 5 kgs and 100 grams of opium, on the basis of a disclosure statement made by his co-accused who were arrested with the recovered contraband.
The Bench of Justice Jasjit Singh Bedi added, “A huge quantity of contraband has been recovered from the coaccused of the petitioner. It would be matter of adjudication during the trial as to whether the petitioner can be held liable for the said recovery. However, keeping in view the stringent provisions of Section 37 of the NDPS Act, I do not find it to be a fit case to grant regular bail to the petitioner. Therefore, the present petition is hereby dismissed at this stage.”
The prayer in the instant petition under Section 439 Cr.P.C. was for the grant of the regular bail to the petitioner in respect of an FIR registered against him under Section 18 of the NDPS Act and Section 201 IPC (Sections 29, 27-A of NDPS Act added later on).
The brief facts of the case were that the investigating agency received secret information that two persons (Irshad and Ashfaq) who deal in selling narcotic substances (opium) would be coming in their truck to sell opium. Based on the said information, a naka was set up and after complying with various requirements under the NDPS Act, the aforementioned truck was stopped; the said two persons were arrested and 05 kgs. and 100 grams of opium were recovered from the truck.
Thereafter, on the basis of the disclosure statement of the accused, the petitioner came to be arrested on June 21, 2021.
The counsel for the petitioner submitted that except for the disclosure statement of his co-accused, there was no admissible evidence against him and there was no other case pending against him under the NDPS Act. The Counsel added that in view of the fact that the petitioner was in custody since June 2021, he ought to be granted the concession of bail.
The State counsel, on the other hand, contended that the petitioner transferred a sum of Rs. 25,000/- on two-three occasions, in the account of his co-accused Ashfaq, and therefore, the connection between the petitioner and his co-accused was duly established. He further contended that there were call records between the petitioner and his arrested co-accused to establish the connection between them, and the petitioner had destroyed his mobile. Therefore, the Counsel added that there was sufficient evidence to connect the petitioner and his co-accused.
Considering these rival submissions, the Court held that a huge quantity of contraband was recovered from the co-accused of the petitioner. Further, the Court was of the opinion that it would be a matter of adjudication during the trial as to whether the petitioner can be held liable for the said recovery.
However, keeping in view the stringent provisions of Section 37 of the NDPS Act, the Court did not find it to be a fit case to grant regular bail to the petitioner.
Therefore, the present petition was dismissed.