Can't say implicated by co-accused to seek anticipatory bail: Punjab and Haryana High Court

Chandigarh, September 15

The Punjab and Haryana High Court has ruled that pleas such as non-recovery of contraband and implication on the basis of disclosure statement by a co-accused can be taken while seeking regular bail or final hearing after the conclusion of the trial in drug cases. Such pleas by the accused do not warrant the grant of anticipatory bail.

NDPS case

The assertion by Justice Vikas Bahl of the HC came on a plea seeking the grant of anticipatory bail in a case registered on June 12 under the provisions of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act (NDPS) Act at the Lohian police station in Jalandhar district.

The assertion by Justice Vikas Bahl of the HC came on a petition seeking the grant of anticipatory bail in a case registered on June 12 under the provisions of the NDPS Act at the Lohian police station in Jalandhar district.

The petitioner’s counsel told Justice Bahl’s Bench that he was not named in the FIR and the recovery was carried out from the co-accused. The petitioner was implicated on the basis of their disclosure statement. Placing reliance on the Supreme Court judgment in the case of “Tofan Singh versus the State of Tamil Nadu”, the counsel contended that the statement of the co-accused before the police implicating another person was not admissible in evidence. As such, the concession of anticipatory bail should be granted.

After hearing rival contentions and going through the documents, Justice Bahl asserted that a perusal of a SC order in another case, “State of Haryana versus Samarth”, showed that the HC’s coordinate Bench granted anticipatory bail on the grounds that recovery was not made from the accused and they were implicated solely on the basis of disclosure statement by the main accused. The coordinate Bench also placed reliance on Tofan Singh judgment while granting anticipatory bail.

The SC, at the same time, observed in the case that the benefit of Tofan Singh judgment could be taken while seeking regular bail or at the time of final hearing after the conclusion of the trial. It would not warrant the grant of anticipatory bail. It was also observed that the HC had fallen into an error in granting anticipatory bail.

Dismissing the plea after taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the matter and the law laid down by the SC in Samarth Kumar’s case, Justice Bahl asserted the petitioner could not make out a “strong prima facie case” to show mala fide on behalf of either the police or the co-accused, who named him as the main person directing the supply

of poppy husk.

Listing four other circumstances disentitling the petitioner to grant of anticipatory bail, Justice Bahl — among other things — added commercial quantity was recovered in the matter. As such, the bar under Section 37 of NDPS Act, would apply.