AKASHDEEP SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Prayer in this petition under Sec. 439 Cr.PC is for the grant of regular bail in case FIR No.43 dtd. 28/6/2023 under Ss. 22 of the NDPS Act, 1985 (later on Sec. 29 of the NDPS Act 1985 has been added vide DDR No.23 dtd. 29/6/2023) registered at Police Station Kahnuwan, District Gurdaspur.

(2.) The brief facts of the case are that the investigating agency received secret information that one car bearing registration number PB 08- CC-8024 which was being driven by Gagandeep Kumar @ Gagi was containing a large quantity of intoxicant tablets and would be coming from Harchowal to Tugalwal. If the car was stopped and checked a huge quantity of intoxicating tablets could be recovered. Based on the said information a barricading was set up and car was seeing coming. On being stopped and asked the driver disclosed his name as Gagandeep Kumar @ Gagi. A polythene envelope was recovered from the dashboard of the car which was found to contain 2000 intoxicating tablets (subsequently known to be containing salt Tramadol Hydrochloride). During the investigation, the disclosure statement of Gagandeep Kumar @ Gagi was recorded wherein he stated that he had purchased the said contraband from the petitioner Akashdeep Singh (petitioner). Hence the petitioner was nominated as an accused and the offence under Sectrion 29 of the NDPS Act was added in this case vide G.D. No.23 dtd. 29/6/2023.

(3.) The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner had been falsely implicated in the present case. He contends that the name of the petitioner figured in the disclosure statement of his coaccused, namely, Gagandeep Kumar @ Gagi. Pursuant to his arrest, no recovery whatsoever had been effected. Reliance is placed on the judgments in the cases of Tofan Singh Versus State of Tamil Nadu, 2020 AIR (Supreme Court) 5592, Rakesh Kumar Singla Versus Union of India, 2021(1) RCR (Criminal) 704, Surinder Kumar Khanna Versus Intelligence Officer Directorate of Revenue Intelligence, 2018(3) RCR (Criminal) 954, State by (NCB) Bengaluru Versus Pallulabid Ahmad Arimutta & Anr. 2022(1) RCR (Criminal) 762, Sanjeev Chandra Agarwal & Anr. Versus Union of India 2021(4) RCR (Criminal) 590, Vijay Singh Versus The State of Haryana, bearing Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No. (s).1266/2023 decided on 17/5/2023, State of Haryana versus Samarth Kumar 2022 (3) RCR (Criminal) 991 and Vikrant Singh Versus State of Punjab, CRM-M-39657- 2020 ", wherein it has been held that the accused can be granted the concession of regular bail where he has been named in the disclosure statement of his co-accused and there is no other corroborative evidence against the accused. As the petitioner was a first-time offender, in custody since 29/6/2023 and none of the 10 prosecution witnesses had been examined so far, he was entitled to the concession of bail.