JUDGMENT :

Pankaj Jain, J.

CRM-2541-2024

This is an application for placing on record Annexure P-5 to Annexure P-38.

In view of the contents of the application, the same is allowed.

Annexure P-5 to Annexure P-38 are taken on record.

Main Case

1. Prayer in the petition is for regular bail in FIR No. 131 dated 17.09.2021 registered for offences under Section 21(c) of the NDPS Act, at Police Station Sadar Patti, District Tam Taran.

2. On 25.04.2024, the following order was passed.

"Counsel for the petitioner has invited attention to this Court to arrest memo qua the petitioner in FIR No. 130 dated 16.09.2021, registered for offences punishable under Sections 379-B, 303 and 34 of the IPC, Police Station Sadar Patti, District Tarn Taran which shows that the petitioner was arrested in the said FIR On 17.09.2021. He further takes to the Court to the contents of the FIR No.131 dated 17.09.2021 which shows that the petitioner was arrested on 17.09.2021 in FIR No.131 after having found to be in conscious possession of narcotics. He submits that neither of the documents shows that the petitioner is under prior arrest. Police State is same i.e. Sadar Patti. Thus, the only inference that can be drawn is that at least either of the version is false and the petitioner has been falsely implicated.

State counsel prays for time to get instructions.

SSP, Tarn Taran to file his affidavit to explain the dichotomy as notice hereinabove.

Adjourned to 06.05.2024. "

3. Pursuant thereto short by way of an affidavit of Ashwani Kapur, IPS, Senior Superintendent of Police, Taran Tam on behalf of respondent-State has been filed. Relevant portion of the same reads as under:-

"4. That prior to the FIR No.131 dated 17.09.2021 u/s 21C/61/85 NDPS Act, PS: Sadar Patti, FIR No.130 dated 16.09.2021 u/s 379-B/323/34/201 IPC was registered against petitioner Surjit Singh as well as one Nishan Singh alias Shana son of Gurdeep Singh by name as well as one unidentified person on the statement of Baljit Singh son of Sukhdev Singh son of Massa Singh, r/o Village Saido, PS: Sadar Patti. As per the statement of Baljit Singh, on 15.09.2021 at about 7:30 PM in the evening, when he was on the way to his village on his Electric scooty, then three unknown persons having muffled faces armed with weapons came and snatched his scooty and Rs.2500/- cash and fled away from the spot. Later on, Baljit Singh identified two persons as present petitioner Surjit Singh as well as Nishan Singh. Thus the said FIR was registered.

5. That later on, on the next day, the petitioner was apprehended along with conscious possession of 270 gram heroin and FIR No.130 dated 17.09.2021 in the same police station. Since the arrest of the petitioner was required in FIR No. 130 dated 16.09.2021 and as such he was arrested in FIR No. 130 on 17.09.2021."

4. Learned State counsel thus submits that since the petitioner was arrested in FIR No. 130 also on 17.09.2021, the story of false implication cannot be believed at this stage.

5. Counsel for the petitioner has thereafter taken to this Court to Dissent Memo (Annxure P-5) to submit that even before the petitioner could be searched, police authorities were aware of the FIR No. 131 and the offences for which he was booked and it is a case of chance recovery and not of secret information. He relies upon judgment rendered by Division Bench in the case of Didar Singh @ Dara Vs. The State of Punjab, 2010(3) RCR Criminal 337 wherein Division Bench held as under

"29. There is another infirmity on the record which further creates a doubt about the entire prosecution case. As per the prosecution, at the time of the recovery, various documents were prepared. Those documents are Ex.PA, Ex.PB, Ex.PC, Ex.PD, Ex.PE and Ex.PF. All these memos bear the FIR number of the case. It is admitted case of the prosecution that when these documents were prepared, the FIR was not registered and FIR No. was not available as the same was registered later on, on the ruqa sent by the police. It has not bee