Period of custody alone cannot be ground for grant of regular bail: Punjab & Haryana HC

Read Order: Avinash Sharma @ Banty v. State of Haryana

Tulip Kanth 

Chandigarh, October 27, 2021 : The Punjab and Haryana High Court has dismissed the third petition, filed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, for grant of regular bail to the petitioner, in an FIR registered under Section 21 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985.

The facts relevant to the present case were that on December 28,2019, the police party was informed that Parveen Kumar a resident of Kaimri Road, Hisar, who does smuggling of heroin, would come from Sector 1/4 Hisar to Jindal Chowk and if a raid is conducted at Surya Nagar Fatak, he can be apprehended. 

Later, one boy carrying a bag in his right hand was seen coming from Sector 1/4 on foot. On seeing the Police party he turned back and started walking briskly. On suspicion, he was apprehended. He revealed his name to be Parveen Kumar son of Subhash Chander.

A notice under Section 50 of the NDPS Act was served upon him. He opted to be checked in the presence of a Gazetted Officer. Hence, the DSP was called at the place of the occurrence and on checking, heroin kept in a white polythene was recovered from the bag which was taken into possession. 

The heroin weighed 509 grams and 14 milligrams. A recovery memo was prepared. Thereafter, on the basis of the disclosure statement of the accused Parveen, the present petitioner – Avinash Sharma @ Banty was arrested.

The counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioner had neither been named in the FIR nor he had been apprehended at the spot and further his name had surfaced only in the disclosure statement.

On the other hand, counsel for the State had referred to the status report filed by way of affidavit of Deputy Superintendent of Police, HQRS Hisar wherein it was stated that the main accused, Parveen Kumar was arrested who suffered his statement wherein it was stated that on December 28, 2019 the petitioner gave him a packet of currency notes and dropped him at Peerangarhi Chowk, Delhi to receive the contraband and to hand over the money. 

The contraband was to be taken to the community center Sector 1/4 Hisar. On the next day, the petitioner was arrested. In his disclosure statement the petitioner stated that on December 28,2019, he took Parveen, the co-accused, to Delhi in his car and dropped him at Peerangarhi Chowk, Delhi and asked him to receive the heroin from one of his contacts. 

He pointed to a person standing near an Auto and asked Parveen to hand over the currency notes and receive the contraband. Thereafter, he asked Parveen to carry the contraband to community centre Sector 1/4 Hisar. He further disclosed that the heroin was purchased by Parveen from a Nigerian person. It was on December 30,2019, Parveen Kumar, the co-accused was taken to Delhi on police remand where he identified the person from whom he had purchased the said heroin and upon this the said Nigerian person was also arrested on the same day, who had identified himself as Ugochukwu Uzar.

The first petition for grant of regular bail was dismissed as withdrawn and the second petition for grant of regular bail was dismissed by a speaking Order passed by this Court.

The Bench of Justice Alka Sarin observed that counsel for the petitioner was not able to point out any change in circumstances since the dismissal of the last petition except for the period of custody. Period of custody alone cannot be a ground for grant of regular bail, added the Bench.

Thus, the Bench did not find any merit in the present petition and, the same was dismissed.