2020 (6) TMI 786 - HC - Indian Laws

Seeking grant of anticipatory bail - Smuggling - Heroin - contraband item - only evidence against petitioner is in the shape of disclosure statement the admissibility and veracity of which would be tested during the course of trial - HELD THAT - It is a case where the petitioner has been nominated solely on the basis of disclosure statement the petition is accepted and it is ordered that the petitioner in the event of his arrest shall be released on bail subject to his furnishing personal bonds and surety bonds to the satisfaction of Arresting/Investigating Officer. However the petitioner shall join the investigation as and when called upon to do so and cooperate with the Arresting/Investigating Officer and shall also abide by the conditions as provided under Section 438 (2) Cr.P.C. Petition disposed off.

Summary

Issues:
Grant of anticipatory bail in a case under Section 21 NDPS Act based on a disclosure statement; Allegations of false implication and lack of evidence against the petitioner; Previous criminal cases involving the petitioner and their impact on the current case.

Analysis:
The petitioner sought anticipatory bail in a case registered under Section 21 NDPS Act based on a disclosure statement made by another accused. The petitioner denied the allegations, claiming false implication and lack of credible evidence against him. The State, however, highlighted the petitioner's involvement in three other criminal cases, emphasizing his complicity. The Court acknowledged that the petitioner was not apprehended at the spot and that the disclosure statement was the primary evidence against him, leaving its admissibility and veracity for trial scrutiny.

In response to the State's argument regarding the petitioner's previous cases, the petitioner's counsel contended that he had been falsely implicated in those cases as well, having been granted anticipatory bail. Considering these circumstances, the Court accepted the petition for anticipatory bail, emphasizing that the petitioner's nomination was solely based on the disclosure statement. The Court ordered the petitioner's release on bail upon arrest, subject to furnishing personal and surety bonds, cooperating with the investigating officer, and complying with Section 438 (2) Cr.P.C. conditions.

However, the Court clarified that failure to cooperate in the investigation could lead to the investigating agency seeking bail cancellation. The judgment balanced the petitioner's right to anticipatory bail with the need for cooperation in the investigation, highlighting the importance of evidence scrutiny during trial while addressing the petitioner's concerns of false implication in multiple cases.