The Punjab and Haryana High Court granted anticipatory bail to the petitioner under Section 438 Cr.P.C. in an NDPS case involving poppy husk, noting he was nominated only on disclosure and did not require custodial interrogation.
The order dated 22.01.2019 granting interim bail to the petitioner is made absolute.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
207
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
CRM No.M-2822 of 2019 (O&M) Date of Decision: February 22, 2019
Vishal Kumar @ Seeta @ Surjit Kumar
...Petitioner
VERSUS
The State of Punjab
...Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE INDERJIT SINGH
Present: Mr.Sanjeev K. Virk, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr.Dhruv Dayal, Sr.DAG, Punjab for the respondent-State.
INDERJIT SINGH, J.
Petitioner has filed this petition under Section 438 Cr.P.C. for grant of anticipatory bail in case FIR No.343 dated 07.12.2018 under Section 15 of the NDPS Act, registered at Police Station Phillaur, Jalandhar.
Notice of motion was issued. Learned State counsel appeared and contested the petition.
I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned State counsel and have gone through the record.
As per prosecution version, 77.500 kgs. of poppy husk has been recovered from co-accused Deepak Kumar lying in his house. Deepak Kumar made disclosure that he along with his brother Pawan and present petitioner had purchased one quintal of poppy husk on 02.12.2018. No
VINEET GULATI 2019.02.22 16:20 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh
CRM No.M-2822 of 2019 -2-
other recovery has been effected in this case. The petitioner has been nominated only on the basis of disclosure statement. So far, there is no other circumstance to connect the present petitioner with the recovery except the disclosure statement.
The petitioner has already joined the investigation. Recovery has already been effected. The petitioner is not required for custodial interrogation. No useful purpose will be served by sending and keeping the petitioner in custody till the disposal of the case.
Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case and without discussing the facts of the case in minute details and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, I find it a fit case, where the petitioner is entitled to benefit of anticipatory bail. Therefore, the present petition is accepted and the order dated 22.01.2019 granting interim bail to the petitioner, is made absolute.
February 22, 2019 (INDERJIT SINGH) Vgulati JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned Yes Whether reportable No
VINEET GULATI 2019.02.22 16:20 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the petitioner is entitled to anticipatory bail in an NDPS case where nomination was based solely on a disclosure statement.
Whether the petitioner requires custodial interrogation given the facts of the case.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Vishal Kumar @ Seeta @ Surjit Kumar
The State of Punjab
Inderjit Singh
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
