Chandigarh, 29th January
High courts in Punjab and Haryana argued that drug threats were eating up the basic fabric of society like termites. High Court Judge Gurbil Singh also clarified that the probative value of an accomplice’s disclosure statement cannot be taken into account when determining a pre-arrest bail petition.
Judge Gurbir Singh’s allegation was in a drug case in which attorneys allege, based on disclosure statements by co-defendants, that petitioner was involved in the case. The lawyer, seeking a concession of pre-bail, added that no recovery of contraband should be made from the petitioner.
No advance bail concessions
The allegations leveled against the complainant are very serious….In view of the seriousness of the crime, I consider the petitioner’s custody inquiry necessary. Petitioner is not entitled to an advance bail concession. — Judge Gulbir Singh
The state position, on the other hand, submitted that petitioner was “named” as the defendant in the issue following the disclosure statement. It was said to have been recovered from the defendant’s property. The accomplice also alleged that the complainant was addicted to selling intoxicating pills.
The matter was filed under the provisions of the Narcotics and Psychotropics Act and the Arms Act at the Fatehabad City Police Station after the defendants filed a petition for advance bail in a case registered on March 30, 2022. placed before a judge.
His attorney also told the court that the complainant and another co-defendant were police informants. Additionally, from March 27, 2022 he had regular conversations with him until March 30. The accomplice did not pay SHO any satisfaction, so he added that he was involved in the false case.
After hearing details from the parties’ lawyers and reviewing the documents, Judge Gurbir Singh denied the bail petition.