AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Surya Partap Singh, J.
This petition for anticipatory bail is the first petition filed by the petitioner under Section 482 of ‘the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023’. It has been filed with regard to a case arising out of FIR No. 156 dated 03.06.2026, Police Station Bilaspur, District Yamuna Nagar, Haryana, for the commission of offence punishable under Section(s) 21(B) & 21(C) of ‘the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985’, hereinafter being referred to as “NDPS Act”.
The FIR of this case came into being at the instance of ‘PSI Rajat Sharma’. It was reported by the above named police officer that on 03.06.2026 when he was leading a team of police officials, deputed for patrolling duty, on the basis of a tip-off given by a reliable source, ‘Harsh Kamal’ alias ‘Happy’ was apprehended and from his possession 650 capsules of ‘Dicyclomine Tramadol Hydrochloride Acetaminophen’ weighing 362.5 grams and 8.19 grams of ‘Heroin’ were recovered.
It is case of the prosecution that pursuant to recovery of above-mentioned contraband, requisite formalities with regard to seizure & sealing of contraband, recording of FIR, and formal arrest of the accused were completed, and further investigation taken up. According to prosecution, during the course of investigation the above-named accused suffered a disclosure statement, wherein he nominated the present petitioner as supplier of the contraband.
Notice of motion.
Since advance notice has already been served upon the State, Mr. Ramender Singh Chauhan, Assistant Advocate General, Haryana accepts notice on behalf of respondent-State. Hence, service of notice upon the State is hereby dispensed with.
Heard.
It has been contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that petitioner is innocent who has been falsely implicated in the present case, without any evidence. As per learned counsel for the petitioner nothing incriminating was recovered from the possession of petitioner, and that with regard to any offence under the NDPS Act he has clean antecedents. The learned counsel for the petitioner has also contended that the only evidence collected against the petitioner is the disclosure statement of co-accused, and that the above-mentioned disclosure statement is inadmissible in evidence as the same was recorded when the co-accused was in custody. As per learned counsel for the petitioner pursuant to above-mentioned disclosure statement nothing incriminating has been recovered from the petitioner and therefore, the same is inadmissible in evidence.
The learned State counsel has controverted the above-mentioned arguments. According to learned State counsel the quantity of contraband recovered from the possession of co-accused of the petitioner comes within the ambit of commercial quantity and that allegation against the petitioner is that he was supplier of Tramadol capsules which was found in possession of co-accused ‘Harsh Kamal’ alias ‘Happy’. According to learned State counsel in view of above rigors of Section 37 of NDPS Act are attracted in the present case, and that without satisfying the twin conditions prescribed under Section 37 of NDPS Act the benefit of bail cannot be afforded to the petitioner. In support of his arguments, learned State counsel has placed reliance upon the principles of law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of ‘Satpal Singh vs. State of Punjab’, (2018) 13 SCC 813, ‘Collector of Customs, New Delhi vs. Ahmadalieva Nodira’, (2004) 3 SCC 549 and ‘Dinesh Kumar vs. State of Haryana’ Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No.9540/2025.
The record has been perused carefully.
It is pertinent to mention here that the petitioner has approached this Court for the concession of anticipatory bail, and it is settled principle of law that the above-mentioned concession is a discretion to be exercised by the Court in a judicious manner. With regard to circumstances in which the above-mentioned discretion should be exercised, the guidelines have been prescribed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in various judicial pronouncements. In this regard in the case of ‘Srikant Upadhyay v. State of Bihar 2024 SCC OnLine SC 282’, it has been observed that power to grant anticipatory bail is extraordinary power, and that irrespective of the fact that in a number of cases, it has been held that bail is a rule, it cannot; by any stretch of imagination, be said that anticipatory bail is a rule.
The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the above-mentioned case has further observed that rule of anticipatory bail is a question of judicial discretion depending upon the facts and circumstances of each case. According to Hon'ble Apex Court, when called upon to exercise the above said power the Court concerned has to be very cautious, as the grant of interim protection to the accused in serious cases may lead to miscarriage of justice and may hamper the investigation.
Similarly, in the case of ‘Nikita Jagganath Shetty alias Nikita Vishwajeet Jadhav v. The State of Maharashtra and Another Special Leave Petition (Criminal) No. 10255 of 2024, decided on 21.07.2024’, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has held that anticipatory bail is an exceptional remedy and it ought not be granted in a routine manner. As per the Hon'ble Supreme Court, there must exist strong reasons for extending indulgence of this extraordinary remedy to a person accused of grave offence.
In the case of ‘Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia etc. v. State of Punjab 1980 SCC (2) 565’, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India held that:-
The power under Section 438, Criminal Procedure Code, is of an extraordinary character and must be exercised sparingly in exceptional cases only;
ii) In addition to the limitations mentioned in Section 437, the petitioner must make out a special case for the exercise of the power to grant anticipatory bail; and
iii) Where a legitimate case for the remand of the offender to the police custody under Section 167(2) can be made out by the investigating agency or a reasonable claim to secure incriminating material from information likely to be received from the offender under Section 27 of the Evidence Act can be made out, the power under Section 438 should not be exercised.
As far as the facts and circumstances of the present case are concerned, following are the relevant aspects which are necessary to be taken into consideration:-
that the recovery of contraband from the possession of co-accused comes within the ambit of commercial quantity and allegations against the petitioner is that he had supplied the same. Thus, rigors of Section 37 of NDPS Act are attracted in the present case;
that in view of Section 37 of NDPS Act without satisfying the twin conditions prescribed under the above-mentioned provision, the benefit of bail cannot be accorded to the petitioner;
that there is nothing on record to show that petitioner qualifies the above-mentioned conditions in any manner, whatsoever; and
that the petitioner does not have clean antecedents as in the past also, he has been prosecuted for the offences under NDPS Act, and other offences also.
In the present case it is also relevant to mention here that the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of ‘Satpal Singh’ (supra) has observed that if the quantity of recovered contraband comes within the ambit of commercial quantity, without reference to Section 37 of NDPS Act and without entering a finding on the required level of satisfaction, in case the court was otherwise inclined to grant bail, the order under Section 438 or 439 should not be passed.
Similarly in the case of ‘Collector of Customs, New Delhi v,. Ahmadalieva Nodira’ (2004)3 Supreme Court Cases 549, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India has observed that the expression ‘reasonable grounds” means something more than prima facie grounds. According to Hon’ble Supreme Court of India it contemplates substantial probable causes for believing that the accused is not guilty of alleged offence. The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India has further observed that reasonable belief contemplated in the provisions requires existence of such facts and circumstances as are sufficient in themselves to justify satisfaction that the accused is not guilty of the alleged offence.
In the case of ‘Union of India v. Ajay Kumar Singh v. Pappuj’ 2023 SCC Online SC 346, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India has observed that in case of offence involving trade of commercial quantity of narcotics, the accused is not liable to be released on bail, unless the court is satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for believing that he is not guilty of such offence and that he is not likely to commit any offence while on bail.
Here this fact cannot be ignored that for fixing the role of suspect in commission of crime, custodial interrogation of the suspect is a valuable right of Investigating Agency, and that as per settled principles of law unless there are some extraordinary circumstances the above-mentioned right of Investigating Agency should not be curtailed. In the present case no such extra-ordinary circumstance exists.
As a sequel to above-mentioned observations, in my considered opinion the present petition is devoid of merits and deserves dismissal. The same is hereby dismissed, accordingly.