Thursday, 11 June 2020

Whether court can grant anticipatory bail to accused till filing of chargesheet in NDPS case if FIR does not bears his name?

More so, it is fairly conceded at the bar by the learned
State counsel that the petitioner is not named in the FIR and that the
only semblance of evidence is statement of co-accused and, thus, a
debatable issue arises over the very legality and credibility of such an
evidence which can only be adjudicated at the time of trial. This
Court is of the opinion that it would be a travesty of justice to send
the petitioner in custody in the present case and his joining the
investigation would suffice the purpose. Accordingly, the petitioner is
directed to appear before the Investigating Officer within a period of
15 days from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order and on
his doing so, he shall be released on bail to the satisfaction of the
arresting/investigating officer till submission of report under Section
173 Cr.P.C. (challan). The petitioner shall continue to join
investigation and shall furnish an undertaking that he shall abide by
the conditions specified under Section 438(2) Cr.P.C. Thereafter, he
will be permitted to furnish regular bail bonds to the satisfaction of
the trial Court.
However, it is made clear that in case, during
interrogation of the accused, if any incriminating article is recovered,
the prosecution shall be at liberty to move an application for
cancellation of his bail.

 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CRM-M-14077-2020
Date of decision: 05.06.2020

Jasbir Singh  Vs  State of Punjab

CORAM:  MR. JUSTICE FATEH DEEP SINGH
Present: Mr. Varinder Basa, Advocate


Due to the outbreak of pandemic COVID-19, the instant
case is being taken up for hearing through video conferencing.
Mr. Sandeep Vermani, Addl.A.G., Punjab puts in
appearance on behalf of the State on his own.
Petitioner, Jasbir Singh, has come up in this first
anticipatory bail application under Section 438 Cr.P.C. in case
bearing FIR No.02 dated 07.01.2020 under Sections 21, 23 and 25 of
Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act and Sections 411,
414, 120-B of the Indian Penal Code and Section 25 of the Arms Act
registered at Police Station Gharinda, Amritsar Rural, District
Amritsar.

The present case was got registered on secret
information received by the police official, ASI Ajay Pal Singh to the
effect that accused, Dharminder Singh, Ajaypal Singh s/o Sukhdev
Singh, Paramjit Singh @ Pamma, Balkar Singh and Rahul Chauhan
along with others, including the petitioners, were carrying on
nefarious trade in heroin as well as illegal weapons, which they used
to bring in India through drone and that co-accused/non-applicant,
Rahul Chauhan, an army man, posted in the area was instrumental in
drove flying and on the basis of which, the co-accused/non-applicant-
Dharminder Singh was arrested leading to recovery of `6,22,240/-
and a drone.
Learned counsel for the petitioner inter alia contends that
petitioner is not named in the FIR and that similarly placed coaccused/
non-applicant-Dildar Singh has been allowed interim bail by
this Court vide order dated 01.06.2020 and that the case of the
petitioner is not distinguishable from that of his co-accused.
The learned State counsel has strongly opposed the
grant of bail on the grounds that the drone has been recovered from
two of the accused and the are actively participating and carrying on
nefarious trade in drugs and illicit arms which funds the terrorists
and, therefore, in view of the seriousness of the allegations, a
comprehensive investigations into the episode needs to be carried
on.
Going through the submissions of the two sides, this

Court vide order dated 01.06.2020 has granted interim bail to the
co-accused, Dildar Singh, who is similarly placed as to the
petitioner. More so, it is fairly conceded at the bar by the learned
State counsel that the petitioner is not named in the FIR and that the
only semblance of evidence is statement of co-accused and, thus, a
debatable issue arises over the very legality and credibility of such an
evidence which can only be adjudicated at the time of trial. This
Court is of the opinion that it would be a travesty of justice to send
the petitioner in custody in the present case and his joining the
investigation would suffice the purpose. Accordingly, the petitioner is
directed to appear before the Investigating Officer within a period of
15 days from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order and on
his doing so, he shall be released on bail to the satisfaction of the
arresting/investigating officer till submission of report under Section
173 Cr.P.C. (challan). The petitioner shall continue to join
investigation and shall furnish an undertaking that he shall abide by
the conditions specified under Section 438(2) Cr.P.C. Thereafter, he
will be permitted to furnish regular bail bonds to the satisfaction of
the trial Court.
However, it is made clear that in case, during
interrogation of the accused, if any incriminating article is recovered,
the prosecution shall be at liberty to move an application for
cancellation of his bail.

The petition stands disposed off accordingly.
(FATEH DEEP SINGH)
05.06.2020 
Print Page

No comments:

Post a comment