AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
SUMEET GOEL, J. (ORAL)
Present petition has been filed under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short ‘BNSS’) (erstwhile Section 438 Cr. P.C.) for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner, in case bearing FIR No.143 dated 27.06.2026, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 21 & 29 of the NDPS Act, 1985, at Police Station Kot Isse Khan, District Moga.
The FIR in question pertains to recovery of 28 grams of Heroin.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the petitioner has been falsely implicated into the FIR in question. Learned counsel has argued that mandatory provisions of the NDPS Act have not scrupulously been complied with and, thus, the prosecution case suffers from inherent defects. Learned counsel has argued that the petitioner was not named in the FIR in question. Learned counsel has further argued that the petitioner has been implicated solely on the basis of the disclosure statement of a co-accused, which is per se not admissible in law, and, thus, the same cannot be the basis for implication of the petitioner. Learned counsel has further argued that there is not even an iota of evidence, available with the prosecution, to show complicity of the petitioner in the offence in question.
Learned counsel has argued that nothing is to be recovered from the petitioner. Learned counsel has further iterated that the petitioner is ready and willing to join investigation. On the basis of the aforementioned submissions, grant of the instant petition is prayed for.
Per contra, learned State counsel has opposed the grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner by arguing that allegations raised against the petitioner are serious in nature. Learned State counsel has, thus, argued that the petitioner has been specifically named in the disclosure statement of the co-accused. Learned State counsel has further argued that investigation in the present case is still under way and the petitioner is yet to be arrested. The petitioner does not bear clean antecedents. Given these circumstances, custodial interrogation of the petitioner is indispensable. Learned State counsel submits that in case the petitioner is accorded concession of anticipatory bail, there is all likelihood that the petitioner may abscond from the process of justice as also influence the prosecution witnesses. Thus, the present petition is devoid of merit and is liable to be dismissed.
I have heard the learned counsel for the rival parties and have gone through the available record of the case.
As per the prosecution case, serious allegations have been leveled against the petitioner. The prosecution case, prima facie, reveals that contraband in question was recovered from co-accused. Perusal of the prosecution case further, prima facie, reveals that the petitioner was not named in the FIR initially, and her name surfaced subsequently during the course of investigation on the basis of the disclosure statement of the co-accused. Thus, the material available on record and investigation conducted so far, prima facie, establish the complicity of the petitioner in the offence in question.
That apart, the petitioner himself has admitted in the averments made in the present petition that she is/ was involved in 06 more cases under NDPS Act. The aforesaid criminal antecedent(s) reveal that the petitioner is a habitual offender with a tendency to indulge in criminal activities. Such antecedent(s) cannot be brushed aside as a mere coincidence and is a relevant consideration while adjudicating the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail. The criminal antecedent(s) of the petitioner also raise a reasonable apprehension that, if enlarged on bail, she may indulge in similar criminal activities, misuse the concession of bail, or interfere with the fair course of justice. The possibility of her absconding or influencing prosecution witnesses also cannot be ruled out.
No cause nay plausible cause has been shown, at this stage, from which it can be deciphered that the petitioner has been falsely implicated into the present FIR.
It is befitting to mention here that while considering plea for grant of anticipatory bail, the Court has to equilibrate between safeguarding individual rights and protecting societal interest(s). The Court ought to reckon with the magnitude and nature of the offence; the role attributed to the accused; the need for fair and free investigation as also the deeper and wider impact of such alleged iniquities on the society. At this stage, there is no material on record to hold that prima facie case is not made out against the petitioner. The material which has come on record and preliminary investigation appear to establish reasonable basis for the accusations. Thus, it is not appropriate to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner, as it would necessarily cause impediment in effective investigation. A profitable reference in this regard is being made to the dicta passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court titled as State v. Anil Sharma, (1997) 7 SCC 187 : 1997 SCC (Cri) 1039, the Supreme Court held as under, relevant whereof reads as under:
“6.We find force in the submission of CBI that custodial interrogation is qualitatively more elicitation-oriented than questioning a suspect who is well-ensconced with a favourable order under Section 438 of the Code. In a case like this, effective interrogation of a suspected person is of tremendous advantage in disinterring many useful informations and also materials which would have been concealed. Success in such interrogation would elude if the suspected person knows that he is well protected and insulated by a pre-arrest bail order during the time he is interrogated. Very often interrogation in such a condition would reduce to a mere ritual. The argument that the custodial interrogation is fraught with the danger of the person being subjected to third-degree methods need not be countenanced, for, such an argument can be advanced by all accused in all criminal cases. The Court has to presume that responsible police officers would conduct themselves in a responsible manner and that those entrusted with the task of disinterring offences would not conduct themselves as offenders.”
Accordingly, this Court is of the considered opinion that the petitioner does not deserve the concession of anticipatory bail in the factual milieu of the case in hand. Moreover, custodial interrogation of the petitioner is necessary for an effective investigation & to unravel the truth. The petition is, thus, devoid of merits and is hereby dismissed.
Nothing said hereinabove shall be deemed to be an expression of opinion upon merits of the case/investigation.
Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed off.