AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
SUMEET GOELSUMEET GOEL, J. (ORAL), 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.201 dated 29.08.2026, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 21(b) & 29 of the NDPS Act, 1985, at Police Station Bhuna, District Fatehabad.
The FIR in question pertains to recovery of 05 grams 71 miligrams of Heroin.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the petitioner has been falsely implicated into the FIR in question. Learned counsel has iterated 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 further argued that, however, the petitioner has been implicated solely on the basis of the disclosure statement of a co-accused – Gurmeet, which is per se not admissible in law, and, thus, the same cannot be made the basis for implication of the petitioner. Learned counsel has further argued that there is not even an iota of evidence on record to establish the petitioner’s complicity in the offence in question. Learned counsel has further iterated that the contraband in question recovered from the co-accused is non-commercial in nature.
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.
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 who is the wife of the petitioner. 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 he 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 the co-accused – Gurmeet. Perusal of the prosecution case further reveals that name of the petitioner surfaced during the course of investigation on the basis of the disclosure statement of said co-accused from whom the contraband in question has been recovered and the said co-accused is none-else but the wife of the petitioner (herein). Thus, the material available on record and investigation conducted so far, prima facie, establish the complicity of the petitioner in the offence in question.
Perusal of the petition in hand shows that the petitioner has himself admitted that he is involved in 02 other FIR(s). 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, he may indulge in similar criminal activities, misuse the concession of bail, or interfere with the fair course of justice. The possibility of his absconding or influencing prosecution witnesses also cannot be ruled out.
The other pleas raised by the petitioner, including those of false implication etc., are matters to be adjudicated on the basis of evidence during the course of trial. Such disputed questions of fact(s) cannot be conclusively determined at the stage of consideration of the petitioner’s prayer for anticipatory bail.
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 StateState v.v. Anil Sharma, (1997) 7 SCC 187 : 1997 SCC (Cri) 1039Anil 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, keeping in view the seriousness of the allegations and the antecedents of the petitioner, 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.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.