GURPREET SINGH Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The prayer in the present petition under Sec. 439 Cr.P.C. is for the grant of regular bail to the petitioner in case FIR No.0304 dtd. 30/6/2022 under Ss. 15, 27-A, 29 of the NDPS Act, registered at Police Station City Mandi Dabwali, District Sirsa.

(2.) The brief facts of the case are that while the police party was on patrolling duty, secret information was received that Surender Singh alias Babbi (since granted bail vide order dtd. 19/1/2024 passed in CRM-M-1653-2024) son of Angrej Singh and Hargobind Singh @ Ghilla (since granted bail vide order dtd. 6/2/2024 passed in CRM-M-41406-2023) son of Hardev Singh, owner and truck driver of truck No.HR 57A-7298, namely, Gursewak Singh @ Sewak, Brezza car No.HR-25H-2885 and truck conductor name not known alongwith others did the business of selling doda post. They were bringing doda post in large quantity frrom Madhya Pradesh in a truck and would unload the truck at village Desujodha in the nearby fields and by concealing it in the fields they would further sell to their customers by contacting them. On 29/6/2022 at night, Surender Singh alias Babbi filled doda post in the said truck bearing No.HR57A-7298 and piloting the truck was a Brezza car bearing No.HR-25H-2885. The doda post was brought to village Desujodha and was hidden in a room in the fields of Harjeet Singh and that land was taken on lease from Hargobind Singh @ Ghilla. Surender Singh @ Babbi and Hargobind Singh @ Ghilla were sitting together in the front of the room built in the fields waiting for the customers and trying to sell the doda post. If the place was raided, then the persons could be apprehended.

(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 co-accused namely, Surender Singh @ Babbi and Hargobind Singh @ Ghilla which has little evidentiary value. 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 and Anr. 2022(1) RCR (Criminal) 762, Sanjeev Chandra Agarwal and 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-396572020, 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 in custody since 3/7/2022, none of the 27 prosecution witnesses had been examined so far and in the one other case registered against him vide FIR No.520/2021 under Ss. 8/15 and 8/29 of the NDPS Act, Police Station Nimbahera Sadar, District Chittorgarh, he had been granted the concession of bail, he was entitled to the concession of bail in this case as well, moreso, when four of his co-accused had been granted the concession of bail.