VIDYA DEVI Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Prayer in the present petition is for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner in FIR No.9 dtd. 20/1/2022 registered under Sec. 22 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter to be referred as "the NDPS Act") (Ss. 29, 61 of the NDPS Act have been added later on) at Police Station Sadar Ahmedgarh, District Malerkotla.

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that in the present case, no recovery has been effected from the petitioner. The petitioner is stated to be 64 years old lady and it has been argued that she has been falsely implicated only on account of the fact that recovery of 1012 loose intoxicant capsules has been effected from her son-in-law Kuldeep Ram who was apprehended by the police. It is further submitted that the petitioner has been implicated in the case solely on the basis of disclosure statement of co-accused. He 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 of co-accused is inadmissible in evidence.

(3.) Notice of motion.