Bail may be granted under Section 439 CrPC if evidence is insufficient and investigation appears dubious, despite strict conditions under the NDPS Act.

Order :

1. The jurisdiction of this court has been invoked by way of filing an application under Section 439 CrPC at the instance of accused-petitioner. The requisite details of the matter are tabulated herein below:

2. It is contended on behalf of the accused-petitioner that no case for the alleged offences is made out against him and his incarceration is not warranted. There are no factors at play in the case at hand that may work against grant of bail to the accused- petitioner and he has been made an accused based on conjectures and surmises.

3. Contrary to the submissions of learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Public Prosecutor opposes the bail application and submits that the present case is not fit for enlargement of accused on bail.

4. I have heard and considered the submissions made by both the parties and perused the material available on record.

5. It is emanating from the record that the petitioner was arrested by the police team of Police Station Badliyas on 06.062023 in connection with an incident which took place on 25.082022, in which certain quantity of poppy husk was recovered from a vehicle. The petitioner is not the registered owner of the vehicle, and no contraband was recovered from his possession. As per the prosecution’s case, on the day of the incident, a vehicle bearing registration number RJ-06G-C0624 was found in a suspicious condition. Upon being chased, the driver abandoned the vehicle on an unpaved road and escaped from the spot. During search of the vehicle, some documents were found in a bag lying therein including: Registration certificate, Insurance cover note, a stamp of an agreement related to Tata Magic Tempo haivng registration No. RJ-06-TA-0876, two passbooks of UCO Bank, two signed cheques of one Suresh Chandra Jat, a pollution certificate and two forms under MV Rules 29-30 and these were seized.

5.1.The Bolero pickup from which the contraband recovered was registered in the name of one Suresh Chandra S/o Hajari Jat. Upon issuance of a notice, the registered owner appeared before the investigating officer on 23.01.2023 and submitted a reply stating that he had leased out the vehicle to the petitioner on 22.06.2022 in lieu of monetary consideration of ₹15,000 per month. The alleged agreement prima facie appears dubious for several reasons including having been executed nearly two months before the incident.

5.2. It is noteworthy that the registered owner was not arrested for five months and the petitioner was implicated solely on the basis of the owner’s statement dated 23.01.2023 soon thereafter, the petitioner was arrested on 06.02.2023. The prosecution has not produced any material evidence whatsoever from which it can be said that the vehicle was under the control and possession of the petitioner at the relevant point of time.

5.3. The submission of defence that the petitioner has no connection either with the contraband or the vehicle from which the recovery was made cannot be ignored at this stage. This Court has also sought verification regarding the financial status of the petitioner from the SHO, Police Station Badliyas. The report dated 04.02.2024, submitted by the learned Public Prosecutor is taken on record. The report contends about an inquiry of the Area Patwari and Gram Panchayat along with certain other material, including colored photographs of the petitioner’s hutment.

5.4. The verification report submitted by the prosecution, including photographic evidence of the petitioner’s residence, establishes that he is an indigent person living in a ‘”Kaccha’’ hut without ceiling, covered by an iron sheet and the same appears very shabby. Further, there is no evidence on record to establish that the petitioner was ever seen driving or h