Judgment:
CRM No.M-19526 of 2014 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM No.M-19526 of 2014 Date of Decision:30.06.2014 Richhpal .....Petitioner Versus State of Haryana .....Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR. Present: Mr.Jagjeet Beniwal, Advocate, for the petitioner. **** MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR , J.(oral) Petitioner-Richhpal son of Sewa Singh, has directed the instant petition for the grant of anticipatory bail, in a case registered against him, vide FIR No.475 dated 29.11.2013, on accusation of having committed an offence punishable under Section 15 of The Narcotic Drugs & Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985(hereinafter to be referred as “the NDPS Act”.), by the police of Police Station Safidon, District Jind.
2. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner, going through the record with his valuable assistance and after deep consideration of the entire matter, to my mind, there is no merit in the instant petition in this context.
3. Ex facie, the argument of the learned counsel that, since the petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case by the police, so, he is entitled to the concession of anticipatory bail, lacks merit.
4. As is evident from the record that, very direct and serious Rani Seema 2014.07.01 14:50 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh CRM No.M-19526 of 2014 2 allegations of heinous offences are assigned that in the wake of raid, 33 bags, containing 36 kgs. of poppy husk each, were recovered from a Canter from the Dera of the petitioner. Moreover, it is highly improbable to believe that the police would plant 33 bags of poppy husk on the petitioner, in order to falsely implicate him in this case, as contrary urged on his behalf. Sequelly, the mere fact that he slipped away from the spot and evaded the legal provision, is not a ground, much less cogent, to claim the relief of pre-arrest bail in this respect. Since, commercial quantity of the indicated poppy husk was recovered from the possession of the petitioner, so, he is not entitled to the concession of anticipatory bail in the obtaining circumstances of the case.
5. Therefore, taking into consideration serious allegations of heinous offence and the recovery of commercial quantity of poppy husk, to me, the custodial interrogation of petitioner is essential in this case. In case, the anticipatory bail is allowed to him, then the investigating agency would be deprived from ascertaining the source of poppy husk, beneficiary thereof, recovery of case property and effective investigation. It will naturally adversely affect and weaken the case of the prosecution, which to my mind, is not legally permissible.
6. Above all, the anticipatory bail is not to be granted as a matter of routine/course in all cases. The grant or refusal of such bail depends on the variety of circumstances, the cumulative effect of which, should enter the judicial verdict. The power under Section 438 Cr.PC is to be exercised sparingly and in exceptional cases keeping into focus the facts and circumstances of each case. At the same time, it is now well- Rani Seema 2014.07.01 14:50 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh CRM No.M-19526 of 2014 3 settled proposition of law that the order of anticipatory bail cannot be allowed to circumvent normal procedure of arrest and investigation by the police. The Court has also to see that the investigation is in the province of the police and an order of anticipatory bail should not operate as an in-road into the statutory investigational powers of the police, in exercising the judicial discretion in granting the anticipatory bail. The Court should not be unmindful of the difficulties likely to be faced by the investigating agency and the public interest likely to be affected thereby in this relevant connection.
7. In the light of aforesaid reasons and without commenting further anything on merits, lest it may prejudice the case of either side during the course of trial of the main case, as there is no merit, therefore, the instant petition for anticipatory bail filed by the petitioner is hereby dismissed as such. Needless to mention that nothing observed, here-in-above, would reflect, in any manner, on merits of the main case, as the same has been so recorded for a limited purpose of deciding the present petition for anticipatory bail. June 30, 2014 (MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR) seema JUDGE Rani Seema 2014.07.01 14:50 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh