JAGSEER SINGH Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Prayer in the present petition is for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner in a case FIR No.272 dtd. 14/6/2024, registered under Ss. 21B/61/85 of NDPS Act, 1985, at Police Station Civil Lines Sirsa, District Sirsa.

(2.) Succinctly facts of the case are that the Police party while on patrolling on 14/6/2024, when reached near Waterworks, then they saw a person standing near a tree on the roadside. On seeing the police, he took shelter behind the tree. However, he was apprehended by the police. On asking, he disclosed his name to be Subhash Chander. He was suspected to be carrying some contraband and thus, offer for search under Sec. 50 of the NDPS Act was given to him. Thereafter, in the presence of a Gazetted Officer, his search was conducted and 115 grams of heroin was recovered from the right pocket of his Kurta. He failed to produce any licence regarding possession of the same and thus, on registration of the FIR, he was arrested on the spot. The investigation commenced. Samples taken were sent to the FSL. During the investigation, he disclosed that the contraband recovered from him was given by his son i.e. co-accused Shanti, who was lateron arrested. During the interrogation of co-accused Shanti, he made a disclosure statement that he purchased 485 grams of heroin from the petitioner and thus, the petitioner was also arrayed an accused in the present case. Apprehending arrest, the petitioner approached the Court of learned Addl. Sessions Judge, FTSC, Sirsa, for the grant of anticipatory bail. Learned Court after hearing both the sides, finding no merit in the petition filed by the petitioner, dismissed the same vide order dtd. 19/9/2025. Hence, aggrieved by the same, the petitioner is before this Court by way of filing the present petition.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently contended that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case. He submits that the petitioner is not named in the FIR, however, he has been arrayed in the present case only on the basis of second disclosure statement of co-accused Shanti due to enmity, which is even not an admissible evidence. He submits that there is no direct or indirect evidence against the petitioner to connect with the alleged occurrence. He submits that no recovery is to be effected from the petitioner. He, thus, submits that no prima facie case has been made out against the petitioner. He submits that the petitioner is ready to join the investigation, in case his prayer for grant of anticipatory bail is considered. He, thus, submits that in the overall facts and circumstances, the petitioner deserves to be granted anticipatory bail.