INDERJIT SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Prayer in the present petition is for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner in FIR No.40 dtd. 7/3/2022 registered under Ss. 21 (b) and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Pyschotropic Substances Act, 1985 at Police Station Kotwali, District Bathinda, Punjab.

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that in the present case, no recovery has been effected from the petitioner and the alleged recovery of 25 grams of heroin is from co-accused Sandeep Pathro. It is further submitted that even the said recovery is much lower than the commercial quantity inasmuch as the commercial quantity starts from 250 grams of heroin. It is also submitted that the petitioner has been implicated solely on the basis of disclosure statement of said co-accused and has relied upon the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Tofan Singh Vs. State of Tamil Nadu, reported as 2021(1) RCR (Criminal) 1, an order passed by Coordinate Bench of this Court dtd. 17/6/2020 in CRM-M-12051-2020 titled "Mewa Singh Vs. State of Punjab", and an order of another Coordinate Bench dtd. 16/7/2021 passed in CRM-M-12997-2020 titled as "Daljit Singh Vs. State of Haryana" to contend that in such like cases if a person has only been proceeded against on the basis of disclosure statement of co-accused and no recovery has been effected from the petitioner, then he should be granted the benefit of anticipatory bail and that the disclosure statement made before the Police is inadmissible in evidence. It is contended that the petitioner is not involved in any other case.

(3.) On advance notice, Mr. Sarabjit S. Cheema, AAG, Punjab, appears and accepts notice on behalf of the State and has submitted that he is fully prepared to argue the matter and assist this Court. He has opposed the present petition for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner and submitted that the petitioner has been named by Sandeep Pathro and from the said Sandeep Pathro, there is recovery of 25 grams of heroin and thus, the petitioner does not deserve the concession of anticipatory bail.