Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Vikas Bahl, J.
Sandeep - Appellant
Versus
State Of Haryana - Respondent
CRM-M-54123-2021
Decided On : 10-01-2022
Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act - Regular Bail - Section 20 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, Section 25 of the Arms Act, 1959, Sections 395, 427, 216 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code - Summary of Acts and Sections: The court discussed the provisions of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, Arms Act, 1959, and Indian Penal Code, 1860, focusing on the conscious possession of contraband, recovery of commercial quantity, and conditions for granting bail.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner sought regular bail in a case involving the recovery of a huge quantity of ganja from a Canter. The petitioner was not named in the FIR and was not alleged to be the owner or driver of the Canter. The petitioner's disclosure statement indicated lack of knowledge about the ganja and absence of conscious possession.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioner's presence at the spot was incidental and that he was not involved in the purchase or sale of the ganja. The court noted the lack of recovery of ganja from the petitioner and the likelihood of a prolonged trial due to the COVID-19 pandemic.
Issues: The issues revolved around the petitioner's alleged involvement in the possession and transportation of ganja, the applicability of Section 37 of the NDPS Act, and the comparison with similar cases where bail was granted.
Ratio Decidendi: The court considered the lack of direct involvement of the petitioner in the ganja-related activities, the absence of recovery from the petitioner, and the precedents of granting bail in cases involving recovery of commercial quantity.
Final Decision: The court granted the petitioner regular bail, imposing conditions to ensure compliance with the law and prevent tampering with evidence or intimidation of witnesses.
JUDGMENT
Vikas Bahl, J. (Oral) - Prayer in the present petition is for grant of regular bail to the petitioner in FIR No.72 dated 18.05.2021 registered under Section 20 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter to be referred as "the Act of 1985"), Section 25 of the Arms Act, 1959 and Sections 395, 427, 216 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 at Police Station Satnali, District Mahendergarh (District Narnaul).
2. Brief case of the prosecution is that secret information had been received to the effect that one Canter had been parked near Village Barda and since, there was suspicion that there were some intoxicant substances in the same, and finding the said information to be credible, a police team was formed to conduct the raid. Efforts weremade to join witnesses from the public but people showed their inability to do so and when the police party reached near the Canter, no person was found present near it and thereafter, a notice under Section 42 of the Act of 1985 was prepared and was forwarded to the Duty Magistrate. The Duty Magistrate reached the spot and in his presence, the search of the Canter was conducted. During the search, 17 quintals 12 kg and 760 grams of huge quantity of ganja was recovered from the said Canter. During the search of cabin of the Canter, one Driving Licence issued in the name of Ravi Kumar son of Om Parkash and one Aadhaar Card also in the name of Ravi Kumar, were recovered and the FIR was registered against unidentified persons. Thereafter, co-accused Ajit, Rohit and Kuldeep were arrested. The present petitioner was also arrested on 23.05.2021.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further relied upon the order dated 15.11.2021 passed in CRM-M-46920-2021 titled as "Sukhwant Singh Vs. State of Haryana" vide which the co-accused Sukhwant Singh has been granted regular bail and further reliance has been placed upon the order dated 07.12.2021 passed in CRM-M-50518-2021 titled as Naveen Vs. State of Haryana and has submitted that the case of the present petitioner if not better is at parity with the said persons. It is submitted that the petitioner is not involved in any other case and he is only an employee of Ajit at the liquor vend of Ajit and the petitioner has been in custody since 23.05.2021 and the challan in the present case has been presented and there are as manyas 28 witnesses out of which only one has been examined and thus, the conclusion of trial is likely to take long time, moreso, in view of the COVID-19 pandemic.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the petitioner was not named in the FIR and he has nothing to do with the said occurrence inasmuch as he is neither the owner of the Canter nor is alleged to be the driver of the Canter. It is further submitted that no recovery has been effected from the petitioner nor the petitioner can be stated to be in conscious possession of any narcotic substances much less, the narcotic substance that has been allegedly recovered. It is further argued that as per the disclosure statement dated 24.05.2021 (Annexure P-2) of the petitioner, it is clear that the petitioner was not even aware as to what was there in the Canter and it is submitted that from the same, it is apparent that the petitioner is neither the person who had purchased ganja nor the person to whom the said ganja was to be supplied. It has been argued that in the disclosure statement, it has been stated that one Parmod, who lives in the house constructed near the underpass of village Nawan, had called the petitioner on mobile phone to inform him that one Canter was parked outside his house and two persons after leaving it there had run towards the railway station and that when they came back, they had been stopped by said Parmod and other persons on the suspicion that some liquor was there in the Canter and that the petitioner should also come to the spot, then the petitioner on his TVSmotorcycle went to the house of Parmod and saw th
The main legal point established in the judgment is the consideration of conscious possession, recovery of commercial quantity, and the applicability of Section 37 of the NDPS Act in granting regular....
The main legal point established is that in cases where the accused's connection to the contraband is not established and there is a delay in trial, the court may grant regular bail, considering the ....
The court emphasized the importance of evidence, compliance with legal provisions, and the impact of delay in trial on bail decisions under the NDPS Act.
The judgment highlights the importance of evidence and legal procedures in establishing a defendant's involvement in a criminal case, and the consideration of custody period and legal precedents in g....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the consideration of substantial custody and the admissibility and veracity of disclosure statements in bail applications under the NDPS Act.
The court emphasized the limitations on granting bail under Section 37 of the NDPS Act, the definition of ganja under Section 2(iii)(b) of the NDPS Act, and the applicability of Section 50 of the NDP....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the significance of substantial custody, likelihood of trial taking time, and debatable issues in favor of the petitioner in granting regular bail ....
Bail can be granted based on the period of custody, arguable points on merits, and satisfaction of the rigors of Section 37(1)(b) of the NDPS Act in similar cases.
The central legal point established in the judgment is the consideration of the unlikelihood of carrying contraband in a transparent bag, non-compliance with Section 50 of the Act, and the absence of....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
