The court emphasized the right to bail as a rule and the necessity of a speedy trial, ruling that prolonged detention without charges violates constitutional rights.

JUDGMENT

Mr. Sandeep Moudgil, J. (Oral)

The jurisdiction of this Court under Section 439 Cr.P.C., has been invoked for the grant of regular bail to the petitioner in FIR No. 129, dated 13.07.2023, under Section 15 of The Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 registered at Police Station Machhiwara, District Khanna/Ludhiana.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that arrest of the petitioner along with the alleged recovery of poppy husk is planted one. He would refer to the photographs attached with the petition i.e. Annexures P-2 and P-3 respectively to show that the police has shown registration of the FIR and arrest of the petitioner on 13.07.2023 wherein at serial No. 3(b) the date of information received at police station is 13.07.2023 at 14:52 hrs (2:52 PM) and a general diary reference was also made at entry No. 024 with the even date and time. The FIR came to be registered on that very date as is evident from vernaculars of the said document at 3:42 PM at police station Machhiwara, District Khanna whereas while referring to the photograph Annexure P-3, the police officials can be seen entering the house of the petitioner along with servant of the present petitioner on 13.07.2023 at around 00:48 PM.

3. He further contends that in fact the police party has conducted the reki as well as raided the house of the petitioner on 12.07.2023 at late hours i.e. 10:13 PM, as it evident from the photographs (Annexure P-2). On the strength of these facts, it is contended that alleged recovery of poppy husk weighing 71 kg has been placed upon the petitioner showing it recovered from two different places i.e. on 13.07.2023 from the parked truck on that very date as well which is evident in the photographs but on 12.07.2023 nothing was recovered which has now been shown on 13.07.2023, 35 kg poppy husk therefrom, apart from 36 kg poppy husk from his resident.

4. Interestingly, once the truck was parked there in the intervening night of 12-13/07/2023, the version of the prosecution case is highly doubtful and there is strong probability of his acquittal in this case.

5. Learned State counsel has filed the custody certificate of the petitioner, which is taken on record. According to which, the petitioner is behind bars for last 11 months and 23 days who is not involved in any other case. He on instructions from SI Jagtar Singh has no reasonable explanation to the aforesaid disputed facts raised by counsel for the petitioner. Though he submits that there is admittedly recovery of 71 kg of poppy husk which is commercial in nature and on that account, the petitioner does not deserve the concession of bail.

6. Having heard learned counsel for the respective parties, this Court is of the considered view that story of the prosecution has become tainted in light of the fact that police party has raided the house of the petitioner at 12.07.2023 at late hours i.e. 10:13 PM with the truck standing in front of the petitioner's house but neither any recovery was shown nor the State Counsel could shown any zimni/rapat roznamacha showing the timing of raid conducted on 12.07.2023 but even on 13.07.2023. The photographs attached with the petition i.e. Annexure P-3 is of 00:48 PM whereas the information to the police has been shown in the FIR to be received at 2:52 PM on 13.07.2023 which seems to be a concocted story prepared by the prosecution.

7. In view of the above, the Court is of the view that since the petitioner has already suffered sufficient period in custody who is not involved in any other case cannot be detained behind the bars till the guilt is proved beyond reasonable doubt, whereas in the instant case, challan stands presented and charges are yet to be framed, trial is prolonged and likely to take long time in the light of the fact that out of 13 prosecution witnesses, none has been examined and detaining the petitioner behind the bars for an indefinite period would amount to violation of Article 21 of the Constitutio