Pardeep vs State Of Haryana

Avneesh Jhingan, J

The matter is taken up for hearing through video conference due to Covid-19 situation.

This is a petition under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. seeking pre-arrest bail in FIR No.88, dated 10.03.2020, under Section 20(b) of NDPS Act, 1985,

registered at Police Station Bhuna, District Fatehabad, Haryana.

Brief facts are that on 10.03.2020, a car was stopped by giving a torch signal at Nakka at Ratia Mod (turn) at Kullan road, the car was stopped short

of Nakka. The driver Gaija tried to turn back the car. The other occupant of car was Gurjit @ Geetu. 18 kgs and 20 grams of Ganja was recovered

from a plastic bag placed in the car. During the investigation Gurjit @ Geetu made a disclosure statement that he had purchased one quintal of Ganja

from the petitioner (Pardeep) at the rate of Rs. 6,000/- per kg.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has not been named in the FIR. His name has surfaced only in the disclosure statement

and the petitioner has been falsely implicated.

Notice of motion.

Mr. Deepak Bhardwaj, DAG, Haryana appears on behalf of the State.

Learned counsel for the State opposes the prayer. It is submitted that the petitioner was involved in eight more FIRs. The contention is that there are

call details of petitioner being regularly in touch with the co-accused Gaija. It is further submitted that as per the co-accused, there was a transaction

of one quintal of Ganja.

The recovery is of 18 kgs and 200 grams of Ganja but there is an allegation of purchase of one quintal of Ganja from the petitioner. The petitioner was

in constant touch with the co-accused Gaija, who was driving the car. In such a situation, in order to have a deeper probe and to go to the root of the

matter, the custodial interrogation of the petitioner is required. The issue that the name of the petitioner surfaced in the disclosure statement would get

relevancy only during trial after the investigation is complete. The petitioner is not a stranger to the co-accused. The call details available with the

police would be relevant to the disclosure statement. It is not the case where merely the petitioner is named in the disclosure statement without their

being any other evidence.

The petition is dismissed.