Vikas Sharma vs State Of Punjab

VIRINDER AGGARWAL, J. (Oral)

The instant petition has been filed under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (corresponding to Section 438 Cr.P.C.), seeking grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner in the following FIR:-

As per the prosecution case, co-accused William Max was apprehended and 126 grams of heroin along with ₹3,75,720/- in cash was allegedly recovered from his possession. During investigation, the petitioner was subsequently nominated on the basis of the disclosure statement of the said co-accused, who allegedly stated that the heroin had been procured from the petitioner.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was neither named in the FIR nor apprehended at the spot, and no contraband or other incriminating material has been recovered from his possession. His implication rests solely upon the disclosure statement of the co-accused, which, being a statement made in police custody, is contended to have no substantive evidentiary value in view of the bar under Section 23 of the BSA, save to the extent permissible by law. It is further submitted that the petitioner is ready and willing to join and cooperate with the investigation and that his custodial interrogation is not warranted. Grant of anticipatory bail has accordingly been prayed for.

Notice of motion.

Upon advance notice, Mr. Tanuj Sharma, Asst. AG, accepts notice on behalf of the State of Haryana and opposes the prayer for anticipatory bail. It is submitted that the allegations against the petitioner warrant a thorough investigation and that the material collected during investigation, including the disclosure statement of the co-accused and the recovery effected in the case, necessitates his custodial interrogation. Dismissal of the petition has accordingly been prayed for.

Having heard learned counsel for the parties and upon meticulous scrutiny of the paper-book with their able assistance, the principal consideration at this stage is whether the material collected during investigation discloses a circumstance warranting custodial interrogation of the petitioner. The question regarding the ultimate admissibility or evidentiary worth of the disclosure statement is not required to be conclusively determined at the stage of consideration of anticipatory bail and is appropriately left open for adjudication during trial. Nevertheless, the disclosure statement of co-accused, coupled with the surrounding circumstances brought on record, constitutes relevant investigative material indicating, prima facie, the petitioner’s alleged involvement in the supply of heroin and specifically the allegation that 300 grams of heroin had been procured by the co-accused from him. At this stage, such material cannot be brushed aside altogether while assessing the necessity of custodial interrogation.

The issue assumes added significance in the backdrop of the pervasive menace of narcotic drugs in the State of Punjab, where the illicit trafficking and supply of contraband pose serious social and public-order concerns, particularly in terms of exposing the younger generation to substance abuse and the consequential impact upon their health, education, family life and social wellbeing. Effective investigation in cases of organised narcotic trafficking necessarily extends beyond the immediate recovery and requires identification of the source of the contraband, the chain of supply, the persons facilitating its distribution and the larger network, if any, operating behind the transaction. In the present case, custodial interrogation of the petitioner is considered necessary for these investigative purposes and for effectively unravelling the source and supply chain of the contraband, as also the role of other persons connected therewith.

In the aforesaid factual backdrop, this Court is not persuaded to extend the extraordinary concession of anticipatory bail to the petitioner. Accordingly, the present petition is dismissed.

It is, however, clarified that the observations made herein are confined to the adjudication of the present petition and shall not be construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case at the stage of trial.