In CRM-M-656 of 2023-PUNJ HC-Person who does not approach Court with clean hands and plays fraud with Court, is not entitled for any relief, reaffirms P&H HC 
Justice Namit Kumar [17-01-2023]

Read Order: Devinder Singh Bhatti v. State of Punjab

Monika Rahar

Chandigarh, January 24, 2023: While dealing with an anticipatory bail plea in an NDPS Act case involving recovery of 500 grams heroin from the car being driven by the co-accused on whose disclosure statement the petitioner was booked, the High Court of Punjab and Haryana has reaffirmed that a person who does not approach the Court with clean hands and plays fraud with the Court, is not entitled for any relief.

Considering that the petitioner was a habitual offender and he intentionally concealed the factum of registration of four FIRs against him, Bench of Justice Namit Kumar declined the grant of anticipatory bail. 

This petition was filed for seeking anticipatory bail in an FIR registered under Section 21 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985. 

The present FIR was registered against co-accused Daljeet Singh @ Jeeta who was apprehended by the police party on the basis of suspicion. On checking his car, recovery of 500 grams Heroin was effected. During the investigation, co-accused Daljeet Singh @ Jeeta suffered a statement that he, along with the present petitioner, jointly purchased the recovered 500 grams Heroin and the source of Heroin was only known to the petitioner. He also disclosed that the car recovered in  this case was also provided to him by the petitioner and as such the name of the petitioner surfaced in this case.

The petitioner's counsel contended that the petitioner was innocent and falsely implicated in the present case. The Counsel mentioned that he was not named in the FIR and was nominated on the basis of the disclosure statement of the co-accused. He further submitted that the petitioner was ready and willing to join the investigation. Therefore, he may be granted the benefit of anticipatory bail.

Per contra, the State counsel, argued that co-accused of the petitioner in his statement submitted that he along with present petitioner jointly purchased the recovered 500 grams heroin and source of heroin was only known to the petitioner. He also disclosed that the car recovered in the present case was also provided to him by the petitioner. He further submitted that the recovered contraband fell under the category of “commercial quantity” and as such provisions of Section 37 of the NDPS Act were attracted. He also submitted that the petitioner concealed the material facts from this Court as it was mentioned in the petition that the petitioner was involved in one case under Section 21 of the NDPS Act and three more cases under the IPC. 

The anticipatory bail application filed by the petitioner before the Judge, Special Court, Ferozepur, was also dismissed. 

After hearing the parties, the bench held that the petitioner was a habitual offender and he intentionally concealed the factum of registration of aforesaid FIRs, pointed out by State counsel, in the petition. 

In light of the above, the Bench observed, 

"It is a well-settled proposition of law that a person who does not approach the Court with clean hands and played fraud with the Court, is not entitled for any relief."

Moreover, the Court held that the recovery in the present case fell under the category of “commercial quantity”, therefore, provisions of Section 37 of the NDPS Act were attracted. Hence, the Court opined that the petitioner was not entitled to the relief of anticipatory bail.