- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
MEWA SINGH v. STATE OF PUNJAB
Factual and Procedural Background
The petitioner, Mewa Singh, sought anticipatory bail in connection with FIR No.133 dated 24.11.2019 registered under Section 21 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act at Police Station Lohian, District Jalandhar. The case arose after Bachittar Singh was found in possession of 1.7 kilograms of heroin and, during interrogation, made a disclosure statement nominating the petitioner as the supplier of the contraband. The petitioner contended that he was falsely implicated and was not arrested at the spot. The State filed a reply affidavit opposing the bail application.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether anticipatory bail should be granted to the petitioner who has been nominated solely on the basis of a disclosure statement made by the co-accused.
- What is the evidentiary value of the disclosure statement in determining the grant of anticipatory bail?
- How do the petitioner's antecedents and involvement in other pending cases affect the bail consideration?
Arguments of the Parties
Petitioner's Arguments
- The petitioner has been falsely implicated in the case.
- He was never arrested at the spot where the contraband was found.
- The disclosure statement nominating him is not credible and lacks veracity.
- In the other three pending cases against him, he has also been falsely implicated and granted anticipatory bail.
Respondent-State's Arguments
- The petitioner has clear complicity as evidenced by his antecedents and involvement in three other cases under various sections of the NDPS Act and the Indian Penal Code.
- The disclosure statement made by the co-accused implicates the petitioner as the supplier of heroin.
Table of Precedents Cited
No precedents were cited in the provided opinion.
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The Court noted that the petitioner was not apprehended at the spot and that the only evidence against him at this stage is the disclosure statement made by the co-accused. The Court observed that the admissibility and credibility of such a disclosure statement are matters to be tested during trial. The petitioner’s antecedents and involvement in three other cases were considered, but it was also noted that he had been granted anticipatory bail in those cases. Balancing these factors and considering the facts and circumstances, the Court found it appropriate to grant anticipatory bail subject to conditions. The Court emphasized the petitioner’s obligation to cooperate with the investigation and warned that failure to join the investigation could lead to cancellation of bail.
Holding and Implications
The Court accepted the anticipatory bail petition and ordered that the petitioner, upon arrest, be released on bail subject to furnishing personal and surety bonds to the satisfaction of the Arresting/Investigating Officer. The petitioner must join and cooperate with the investigation as and when required and comply with the conditions under Section 438(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code.
The decision directly affects the parties by granting the petitioner relief in this case without setting any new legal precedent. The ruling underscores the principle that disclosure statements alone, especially when the accused is not apprehended at the spot, do not preclude the grant of anticipatory bail, subject to trial scrutiny and compliance with bail conditions.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CRM-M-12051-2020 Date of Decision:-17.6.2020
MEWA SINGH
… Petitioner Versus
STATE OF PUNJAB ... Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GURVINDER SINGH GILL
Present:- Mr. Ruhani Chadha, Advocate for the petitioner.
Ms. Samina Dhir, DAG, Punjab. (the aforesaid presence is being recorded through video conferencing since the proceedings are being conducted in Virtual Court)
*****
GURVINDER SINGH GILL, J .
1. The petitioner has approached this Court seeking grant of anticipatory bail in a case registered against him vide FIR No.133 dated 24.11.2019 under Section 21 NDPS Act Police Station Lohian, District Jalandhar.
2. Reply way of affidavit of Mr. Piara Singh, PPS, Deputy Superintendent of Police, Sub-Division Shahkot, District Jalandhar (Rural) on behalf of the respondent-State has been filed, which is taken on record.
3. The allegations in nut-shell are that Bachittar Singh was found in possession of 1.7 Kgs. 'Heroin'. During the course of interrogation, he made a disclosure statement nominating the petitioner as an accused wherein he stated that the contraband in question had been supplied by
1 of 3
the petitioner.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that he has falsely been implicated in the present case and was never arrested at the spot and that the alleged disclosure statement is not worth credence.
5. Opposing the petition, learned State counsel has submitted that keeping in view the antecedents of the petitioner his complicity is clearly evident inasmuch as he stands involved in three other cases i.e. FIR No.43 dated 2.4.2016 under Sections 15, 21, 22 NDPS Act, Police Station Sultanpur Lodhi; FIR No.5 dated 5.1.2020 under Sections 307, 186, 332, 353, 224, 225, 427, 148, 149 IPC, Police Station Sultanpur Lodhi & FIR No.193 dated 193 dated 22.11.2019 under Sections 15, 21, 25, 29 NDPS Act, Police Station Kartarpur.
6. I have considered rival submissions addressed before this Court.
7. It is not disputed that the petitioner was never apprehended at the spot and that the only evidence against him is in the shape of disclosure statement, the admissibility and veracity of which would be tested during the course of trial. As regards the other three cases which are stated to be pending against the petitioner, the learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that even in the said cases he has been falsely implicated and was never arrested at the spot and has been granted anticipatory bail in all three cases.
8. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and that it is a case where the petitioner has been nominated solely on the basis of
2 of 3
disclosure statement, the petition is accepted and it is ordered that the petitioner in the event of his arrest shall be released on bail subject to his furnishing personal bonds and surety bonds to the satisfaction of Arresting/Investigating Officer. However, the petitioner shall join the investigation as and when called upon to do so and cooperate with the Arresting/Investigating Officer and shall also abide by the conditions as provided under Section 438 (2) Cr.P.C.
9. It is however clarified that in case the petitioner does not join investigation, it shall be open to the investigating agency/prosecution to move for cancellation of his bail.
( GURVINDER SINGH GILL)
17.6.2020 JUDGE
Gaurav Sorot
Whether reasoned / speaking? Yes / No
Whether reportable? Yes / No
3 of 3
Alert