Sat Pal Singh Petitioner v. State Of Punjab

Factual and Procedural Background

Present: Mr. H.P.S. Ghuman, Advocate for the petitioner. This is the second petition filed under Section 438 Cr.P.C. for grant of anticipatory bail in FIR No.0053 dated 11.06.2017 under Sections 22 and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, registered at Police Station Bhadson, District Patiala. The first petition (CRM-M No.31744 of 2017) was dismissed by this Court by order dated 01.09.2017 on the ground that the case involved recovery of commercial quantity and, therefore, grant of bail is barred by Section 37 of the NDPS Act, 1985. The petitioner relied on two fresh grounds: (a) a co-ordinate Bench granted anticipatory bail to co-accused Beant Singh and Gurvinder Singh in CRM-M No.24760 of 2017 (order dated 21.09.2017); and (b) a separate petition alleging false implication has been filed in which notice of motion has been issued. The matter was heard by Kuldip Singh J. on October 04, 2017. The bench recorded: Speaking / reasoned: Yes; Whether Reportable: No.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether anticipatory bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C. should be granted in respect of FIR No.0053/2017 involving alleged recovery of commercial quantity under Sections 22 and 29 of the NDPS Act, in view of Section 37 of the NDPS Act which bars grant of bail.
2. Whether parity is available with the co-accused who were granted anticipatory bail by a co-ordinate Bench in CRM-M No.24760 of 2017.
3. Whether the judgment should be referred to a Reporter or reported in the digest (meta question recorded in the file).

Arguments of the Parties

Petitioner's Arguments

• The petitioner relied on parity with a co-ordinate Bench order dated 21.09.2017 in CRM-M No.24760 of 2017 which granted anticipatory bail to co-accused Beant Singh and Gurvinder Singh.
• The petitioner submitted that he has been falsely implicated and a separate petition alleging false implication has been filed, with notice of motion issued.

The opinion does not contain a detailed account of the respondent's or State's arguments.

Table of Precedents Cited

No precedents were cited in the provided opinion.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The Court noted that the earlier dismissal of the first petition was based on finding that the case involved recovery of commercial quantity and that Section 37 of the NDPS Act bars grant of bail. The Court considered the petitioner's contention of parity with the co-ordinate Bench order in CRM-M No.24760 of 2017 and found parity inapplicable because that co-ordinate Bench order did not consider, discuss or decide the provisions of Section 37 of the NDPS Act; accordingly it was not binding. The Court further held that mere filing of a petition alleging false implication is not a ground to override the effect of Section 37 of the NDPS Act. Applying these principles to the facts, the Court concluded that anticipatory bail could not be granted.

Holding and Implications

DISMISSED.

Direct effect: The petition for anticipatory bail (CRM-M No.37140 of 2017) was dismissed. The decision rests on the inapplicability of parity with a co-ordinate Bench order that did not consider Section 37 NDPS Act and on the bar contained in Section 37; no broader precedent was laid down. Reportable: No. Speaking/reasoned: Yes.