Manjit Singh vs State of Haryana

Prayer in both these petitions is for grant of regular bail to the petitioners in FIR No.364 dated 16.12.2017 under Sections 15, 61, 85 of NDPS Act,

registered at Police Station Pinjore, District Panchkula.

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that while granting regular bail to co-accused Varinder Kumar in CRM-M-22746-2018, following order

has been passed by this Court on 31.05.2018: -

“Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that as per the allegations in the FIR, on the intervening night of 15/16 December, 2017, ASI Anant

Ram was on patrol duty and noticed that a car was seen coming on high speed on the main road which struck the wall of a resort as the driver of the

car lost the balance. On seeing the police party, the driver of the car fled away from the spot. Thereafter, one of the police officials, who was with the

police party, took certain photographs of the said car. The car was searched and approximately 300 Kgs of poppy husk power were found which was

packed in different packets. During investigation, the police arrested one Karnail Singh on the basis of the registration certificate of the Indigo Car

bearing registration number PB-65-V-9944. On the disclosure statement of Karnail Singh that the petitioner was driving the car, the petitioner was

arrested and thereafter the disclosure statement of the petitioner was recorded in which it is stated that he along with his companion Karnail Singh

were coming in the aforesaid car carrying the poppy husk powder packed in 12 polythene packets.

Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that as per the allegations in the FIR, the police had seen only one person in the car, who was

driving the car and ran away from the spot, whereas, as per the disclosure statement of Karnail Singh, he along with the petitioner were there in the

car and there is no explanation how the name of the second person is not mentioned in the FIR. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further

submitted that it will be a debatable issue during the course of trial as to whether the disclosure statement of alleged co-accused is admissible against

the petitioner, in pursuance of which, no recovery was effected from the petitioner.

Learned State counsel, on instructions from ASI Satwinder Singh, has opposed the grant of regular bail to the petitioner on the ground that recovery is

of commercial quantity and the challan has already been presented. Learned State counsel has relied upon the photographs, which were allegedly

taken by one of the police officials immediately after the accident.

After hearing learned counsel for the parties I find merit in the present petition.

In the 161 Cr.P.C. statements of one SI Gurmej Singh and one SPO Yashpal Singh, in whose presence the disclosure statements of the petitioner and

Karnail Singh were recorded, it is mentioned that both the accused persons have deposed that the car was being driven at a high speed and after

losing the control, it hit the wall of a marriage palace in which, both of them, i.e. petitioner and Karnail Singh, suffered many injuries and the car was

damaged. Thereafter, they left the car along with the contraband and ran away by taking benefit of darkness. This statement is contrary to the version

given in the FIR where it is stated that there was only one person who was driving the car and ran away from the spot. Even otherwise, a perusal of

the photographs of the car shows that it was badly damaged and the driver of the car must have suffered some injuries and it was not possible for him

to escape in the presence of the policy party as they reached the spot immediately after accident. Even otherwise, the entire investigation against the

petitioner is silent about any identification done by the prosecution as it is own case of the police that the petitioner ran away from the spot in their

presence. Even the disclosure statement of Karnail Singh involving the petitioner as driver of the car and the disclosure of the petitioner himself,

without there being any recovery in pursuance thereof, are yet to face the test of admission during the course of trial.

In view of the above, I hold that as per the provisions of Section 37 of the NDPS Act, there is a possibility that the petitioner was not involved in the

present case. However the observations made in this order are only for the purpose of deciding this bail application and will have no bearing on the

merits of the case.â€​

Learned counsel for the petitioners further submits that the petitioners were not named in the FIR and their names were surfaced on the disclosure

statement made by co-accused Karnail Singh, who has stated that he had offered to both the petitioners to join his business of selling narcotics. It is

further submitted that the petitioners are not involved in any other case and except the disclosure statement of co-accused Karnail Singh, there is no

other evidence on record against the petitioners.

Learned State counsel, on instructions from ASI Savinder Singh, has not disputed the fact that the petitioners are not involved in any other case,

however, opposed the prayer for bail on the ground that the recovery is of commercial quantity and the challan has already been presented.

After hearing learned counsel for the parties, I find that it will be a debatable issue whether the petitioners were in conscious possession of the

contraband and considering the fact that they are not involved in any other case and their names were surfaced on the disclosure statement of co-

accused Karnail Singh, both these petitions are allowed and the petitioners are directed to be released on regular bail subject to furnishing their

bail/surety bond to the satisfaction of the trial Court/Illaqa Magistrate/Duty Magistrate.

Petitions are disposed of.