In CRM-M-55539-2022-PUNJ HC- Anticipatory bail cannot be granted to accused who has been named in disclosure statement of arrested accused, reiterates P&H HC
Justice Jasjit Singh Bedi [06-12-2022]

Read Order: Vijay Singh v. State of Haryana 

Monika Rahar

Chandigarh, December 6, 2022:  While dealing with a petition under Section 438 Cr.P.C. for the grant of anticipatory bail in an FIR registered under Sections 15/29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (NDPS Act), the High Court of Punjab and Haryana has held that it is a settled principle of law that anticipatory bail cannot be granted to an accused who has been named in the disclosure statement of the arrested accused. 

The brief facts of the case before the Bench of Justice Jasjit Singh Bedi were that the police party on patrolling duty, apprehended Gurbachan Singh alias Gachi who was carrying a black coloured polythene wrapper. After complying with the provisions of Section 50 of the NDPS Act, Gurbachan Singh was searched and was found to be in possession of 1.700 kilograms of Chura Doda Post. 

During the investigation, Gurbachan Singh @ Gachi stated that he was supplied with the contraband for the purpose of selling, by Vijay Singh (petitioner) and that the profit was to be shared amongst them.

The counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioner was not named in the FIR but was brought in the case only via the disclosure statement of his co-accused. He also contended that the judgment in State of Haryana v. Samarth Kumar, 2022(3) R.C.R. (Criminal) 991 would not apply to the present case because in the said case, the recovery was of commercial quantity and in the present case, the recovery from the arrested accused was of non-commercial quantity of contraband. Therefore, the petitioner deserved the concession of anticipatory bail, the Counsel added. 

The State counsel while opposing the grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner contended that in terms of the judgment in State of Haryana v. Samarth Kumar (supra), the petitioner would not be entitled to the grant of anticipatory bail. The Counsel further contended that just because the recovery from Gurbachan Singh alias Gachi was of non-commercial quantity of contraband, it does not mean that on the petitioner’s arrest, only non-commercial quantity of contraband would be recovered.

It was also argued that the principle of law as laid down in State of Haryana v. Samarth Kumar (supra) does not draw a distinction between the recovery of commercial/ non-commercial quantity from the principal accused to be a determining factor to the grant of anticipatory bail or rejection thereof of an accused named in a disclosure statement. 

At the very outset, the Court perused the case of the State of Haryana v. Samarth Kumar (supra) to observed that though the recovery from the principal accused was of commercial quantity of the contraband, no distinction whatsoever was drawn by the Supreme Court with respect to the recovery from the principal accused being of commercial/non-commercial quantity being a determining factor for the grant of bail to the person named in the disclosure statement. 

In light of the above, the Court held that it is a settled principle of law that anticipatory bail cannot be granted to an accused who has been named in the disclosure statement of the arrested accused. 

Thus, the present petition was dismissed.