The central legal point established in the judgment is the entitlement to interim bail based on personal circumstances, completion of investigation, and the prevailing situation regarding the outbreak of COVID-19.

JUDGMENT

1. Prayer in the main petition is for grant of regular bail to the applicant-petitioner in FIR No. 59 dated 10.07.2019, registered under Sections 22/61/85 of the NDPS Act at Police Station Sadar Rajpura, District Patiala.

2. The applicant-petitioner has moved present application for grant of interim bail on the ground that she has given birth to a male child on 02.04.2020 while in custody.

3. On 09.04.2020, while issuing notice of the application, this Court had directed Superintendent, Central Jail, Patiala to apprise the Court, after taking advice and opinion from the Civil Surgeon/SMO/Jail Doctor, concerned as to which of the two places i.e. the hospital, where the applicant-petitioner and her new born child are currently admitted or the prison, where the applicant-petitioner is confined, would be more suitable and safe for both of them in view of the prevailing circumstances regarding outbreak of COVID-19.

4. Brief facts of the case are that on 10.07.2019, the applicant-petitioner, who is a young lady, was apprehended by ASI Swaran Singh along with his co-police officials, with the allegations that while they were on patrol duty at about 08.00 AM, they noticed that applicant-petitioner, carrying a black coloured polethene bag, was coming towards the railway station and on seeing the policy party, she threw the said bag. On suspicion, ASI Swaran Singh along with Lady Constable Meenakshi and other police officials apprehended the applicant-petitioner at about 08.00 AM. She was inquired about her name and address and thereafter, ASI/Investigating Officer picked up the said black coloured polethene bag and searched the same and found that it was containing 80 injections mark Buprenorphine and 80 injections of Avil Phineramine Maleate. Thereafter, the Investigating Officer tried to join an independent witness but nobody was ready to. The Investigating Officer, thereafter, took out the injections from the said bag and kept in a plastic box and sealed the same by his seal 'SS' and by making a separate pack of sample, handed over the same to co-official Constable Didar Singh. A recovery memo was prepared and finding that the applicant-petitioner has committed an offence punishable under the NDPS Act, an information was sent to the police station through PHG Surinder Kumar for registration of the case at 09.30 AM.

5. Learned counsel for the applicant-petitioner has argued that applicant-petitioner is having no previous history of involvement in any drug related case/criminal case and as per FSL report, one parcel was containing Buprenorphine HCL, whereas the other parcel was containing Avil, which is not covered under the NDPS Act.

6. Learned counsel has further argued that even though it was a case of chance recovery, still the Investigating Officer has not followed the provisions of Section 50 of the NDPS Act as a bare perusal of the FIR itself shows that from the time the applicant-petitioner was apprehended by the police party till completion of the investigation, which includes recovery of injections, preparation of sample parcels and bulk parcels, preparation of recovery memos and other memos, no information was sent to the police station to call a second investigating officer.

7. Learned counsel has relied upon the judgment rendered by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Mohan Lal vs. State of Punjab, (2018) 17 SCC 627 , wherein it has been held that where the complainant and the Investigating Officer are the same person, it does not amount to a fair investigation. It is further held that justice must not only be done but it must appear to be done also and any possibility of bias or a pre-determined conclusion has to be excluded.

8. The aforesaid judgment has further been interpreted by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Varinder Kumar vs. State of Himachal Pradesh, 2019 SCC Online 170, wherein it has been held that the judgment rendered in Mohan Lai's case (supra) has a prospective application keeping in view the facts of individual cas