Harpal Singh vs State

In wake of onslaught of COVID-19, lawyers have been advised to refrain from coming to the Courts.

The petitioner has been arrested in connection with FIR No. 103/2019 of Police Station Pilibanga, District Hanumangarh for the offences punishable under Sections 8/15 and 25 of NDPS Act. He has preferred this bail application under Section 439 Cr.P.C.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner's case is similar to Baljeet Singh, Surendra Kumar Jyani and Ashok Kumar, who have granted bail by this Court.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has shown the bail granted to Baljeet Singh on 22.10.2020 in S.B. Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.7832/2020, which reads as under :-

Heard learned counsel for the parties. Perused the material available on record.

The present bail application has been filed under Section 439Cr.P.C. on behalf of the applicant, who is in custody in connection with FIR No.103/2019, Police Station Pilibanga, District Hanumangarh, for the offences under Sections 8/15, 25 and 29 ofN.D.P.S Act.

It is submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that the contraband was recovered from one Harpal. In the FIR, there is no mention of the applicant's name, however, on 16.03.2019information under Section 27 of Evidence Act, 1872 ('the Act') was recorded by the investigating officer, wherein, it is alleged that Harpal indicated that applicant made available the goods to the accused Harpal through Surender Kumar Jyani and Ashok KumarBishnoi, whereafter on 18.03.2019 another information under Section 27 of the Act was recorded, wherein, the version was changed indicating that the applicant along with Surender Kumar and Ashok Kumar delivered the goods in the field of Harpal.

Submissions have been made that except for the two purported information by the co-accused under Section 27 of the Act, there is no material, whatsoever, against the applicant in the entire charge-sheet so as to implicate him in the offences, as alleged. Submissions have been made that the applicant is behind the bars since March 2019 and that the trial of the case is likely to take considerably long time.

Learned Public Prosecutor opposed the bail application.

In the circumstances of the case, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, this Court is of the opinion that the bail application filed by the applicant deserves to be accepted.

Consequently, the bail application is allowed. It is ordered that the accused-applicant - Baljeet Singh S/o Sh. Jogendra Singh arrested in connection with FIR No.103/2019, Police Station Pilibanga, District Hanumangarh, shall be released on bail; provided he furnish a personal bond of Rs.50,000/-

(Rupees Fifty Thousand Only) with two sureties of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand Only) to the satisfaction of the learned trial court with the stipulation to appear before that Court on all dates of hearing and as and when called upon to do so.

This Hon'ble Court has recorded that the recovery of the contraband was from Harpal whereas the Baljeet Singh's name was not there in the FIR and he was entangled only on the information under Section 27 of Evidence Act, 1872.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that since Baljeet Singh and present petitioner Harpal are having the same role as per conclusion of the prosecution, therefore, the petitioner deserves to be enlarged on bail.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has taken this Court to the conclusion of the prosecution, which is on page 13 of the charge-sheet and relevant portion reads as under :-

. 25

, ,

,

, ,

.. ◌

28.08.2019

65

. 01 180

09.09.2019 . ..

...

,

◌

8/25 . . ..

102/2019 8/15 .....

.....

. 25

,

◌◌

1 80 102/2019 8/15

.... 16

100

◌◌

102/2019 8/15

102/2019 .

◌ , ◌

/

Learned Public Prosecutor opposes the bail application.

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the case.

This Court finds that the ground on which Baljeet Singh's bail has been taken by this Hon'ble Court is that there is no direct recovery from him and his name had been arrayed only on the information under Section 27 of the Evidence Act, 1872 whereas this Hon'ble Court has also recorded in the aforequoted order dated 22.10.2020 that contraband was recovered from the present petitioner-Harpal. Even if the learned Public Prosecutor failed to point out, in that case, that what was the role of Baljeet Singh then also this Court is conscious of the fact that the recovery from Harpal is undisputed.

In view of the above, this Court is not inclined to grant bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C. to the petitioner. Accordingly, the present criminal misc. bail application is dismissed. However, the petitioner shall be at liberty to come after recording of statement of Investigating Officer.