In CRM-M No.26126 of 2022-PUNJ HC- P&H HC grants anticipatory bail to petitioner who was sought to be roped in NDPS Act matter based on disclosure statement of co-accused stating that he sold 250 gms opium to accused-petitioner Justice M.S. Ramachandra Rao [15-06-2022]

Read Order: Dayanand v. State of Haryana

Monika Rahar

Chandigarh, June 21, 2022: The Punjab and Haryana High Court has allowed anticipatory bail plea of the petitioner who was sought to be roped in an NDPS Act matter on the strength of a disclosure statement made by his co-accused from whom about 206 grams of opium was recovered. 

The co-accused stated that he sold 250 grams of opium to the petitioner. The State Counsel submitted that the petitioner was also an accused in another offence under the IPC, however he was acquitted in the same. 

The Bench of Justice M.S. Ramachandra Rao imposed certain conditions while allowing the petition. 

The petitioner in this case was seeking anticipatory bail in an FIR registered for an offence punishable under Section 18 of the NDPS Act, at Police Station Jhojhu Kalan, District Charkhi Dadri.

The contents of the FIR indicate that a person by name Shahid Hussain was detained on suspicion and he was found to be in possession of opium weighing about 206 grams and he made a disclosure statement stating that the 250 grams of opium was sold to the petitioner by him. 

On the notice of motion, although the status report was not filed, however, the State Counsel contended that only on the basis of the disclosure statement of the said Shahid Hussain, the petitioner was sought to be roped in. 

It was also stated that the petitioner was earlier an accused in an offence under the IPC, but later he was acquitted in that case.

In view of the above, Court directed the petitioner to appear before the SHO/Investigating Officer to join the investigation and in the event of his arrest, he was directed to be released on bail on his furnishing bail bonds to the satisfaction of SHO/Investigating Agency, subject to the following conditions as envisaged under Section 438(2) Cr.P.C. 

The first condition was that the petitioner “shall make his that the petitioner shall make himself available for interrogation before the investigating officer as and when required.”

Also, the petitioner was directed not to (directly or indirectly) make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case as to dissuade them from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer and lastly, the petitioner was asked not to leave the country without prior permission of the Court and to surrender his passport, if any.

The petition was accordingly allowed.