Punjab & Haryana HC denies anticipatory bail to NDPS accused after recovery of contraband from his house

Read Order: Vijay Kumar v. State of Punjab 

Monika Rahar

Chandigarh, January 7, 2022:  While dealing with a petition under Section 438 of the Cr.P.C., the Punjab and Haryana High Court has denied the grant of anticipatory bail to an accused under the NDPS Act on the ground that the contraband substance was recovered from the petitioner’s house.

 The Bench of Justice Archana Puri stated, “Even though, the petitioner has been nominated, as accused at the behest of Vikram Singh, fellow accused, but however, fact remains that recovery of incriminating article has been effected from the house of the present petitioner in the presence of independent witness”

In this case, an FIR was lodged against the petitioner under Section 15 of the NDPS Act. As per the prosecution story, after the investigating agencies received secret information about the involvement of the petitioner and his co-accused Vikram Singh in smuggling of poppy husk in Rajasthan and its sale in Punjab, Vikram Singh, who was already in custody in another FIR, was investigated and during this investigation, he suffered disclosure statement, thereby stating to have smuggled 30 kgs of poppy husk along with the petitioner. He also confessed to hiding the contraband substance in the house of the petitioner with the petitioner’s knowledge. In pursuance of this confession, 30 kgs. of poppy husk was recovered from the spot so disclosed. 

The petitioner’s counsel argued that the petitioner was nominated as accused, only on the basis of the disclosure statement made by his co-accused and that even the recovery of 30 kgs. of poppy husk was falsely shown to be from the petitioner’s house. 

On the other hand, the State Counsel cited the availability of secret information against the petitioner and the discovery of narcotic substances on account of the disclosure statement of the petitioner’s co-accused, as grounds for opposing the petitioner’s pre-arrest bail plea. 

The Court noted that the disclosure statement specifically stated that both the accused persons collectively purchased the contraband and that the recovery was effected from the disclosed spot in the presence of even the DSP and independent witnesses. 

Thus, the accused was denied pre-arrest bail.