BADAR DURREZ AHMED, J.

( 1 ) IT is a case for the prosecution that a recovery of 500 grams of heroin is said to have been made from the present petitioner. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that no such recovery was made at all and the petitioner has been framed in this case. He further submitted that the petitioner s father Shri Gulab Singh has, for several years prior to the date of incident, been writing letters and articles with regard to the spread of narcotic drugs and the fact that the people involved in narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances were not being apprehended. To substantiate this aspect the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner s father had written various letters including letters to the Prime Minister, copies of some of which are placed on record in the present petition.

( 2 ) THE learned counsel for the petitioner also submitted that this is the second bail application before this court. The first bail application was rejected by an order of this court on 04. 05. 2004 in the following terms: heard. The petitioner has been allegedly found in possession of 500 gram smack. Bail is claimed mainly on the ground that case has been fabricated against the petitioner who had lodged complaint against some of members of the Sansi Community and the police officials. Since the quantity allegedly recovered is commercial quantity, the rigours of section of section 37 NDPS apply. No ground is made out for grant of bail. Rejected.

( 3 ) HE submitted that after the said order rejecting the bail application of the petitioner was passed, certain developments have taken place which completely alter the fact situation. The first and most important development, according to the learned counsel for the petitioner, was the examination of one Ratanbir (PW5) who is said to be the only independent public witness of the recovery. The other circumstance is the examination of PW4, ASI Paramjit Singh. Pointing to the deposition of PW5 on 28. 02. 200, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the witness was declared to be hostile inasmuch as he had clearly stated that he did not know the accused person present in court and he had categorically stated in his examination-in-chief that no contraband was ever recovered in the present case in his presence from the possession of the accused. In cross-examination by the learned APP for the State also, the said PW5 categorically stated that he had placed his signatures on various documents which were not prepared in his presence and he had only signed them in the police station and had not given any statement to the police. In other words, according to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the only independent witness of the recovery said to have been made from the present petitioner has completely denied the recovery. He also referred to the deposition of PW4 (ASI Paramjit Singh) to show that the documents filed in court and the documents produced at the time of examination by the prosecution were different. In this context, it is the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the prosecution has gone to such lengths in this case as to even fabricate the documents. He specifically referred to that part of the statement of PW4 wherein he says that there is no difference between the documents Exhibit DX and Exhibit PW4/ A at point C to C. The court observation in this regard is as under: in register No. 19 the words Form FSL Bhi Saath Main Hai is added with different ink and these words are not appearing in the copy supplied to the accused and filed in the Court i. e. Ex DX.

( 4 ) THE learned counsel for the petitioner, therefore, submitted that these developments which have taken place after the passing of the order dated 04. 05. 2004 clearly entitled the petitioner to the grant of bail and for the consideration of the second bail application.

( 5 ) THE learned counsel for the State opposed the grant of bail. He firstly s

Click Here to Read the rest of this document