273 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision: 28.01.2025 Balbir Singh …Petitioner versus State of Punjab and others …Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE HARPREET SINGH BRAR Present: Mr. Preetinder Singh Ahluwalia, Advocate, Mr. Akash Deep Singh, Advocate and Mr. Deepinder Singh Virk, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Manish Bansal, P.P., U.T. Chandigarh.

Mr. Nitesh Sharma, DAG, Punjab.

Mr. Prateek Gupta, Advocate for respondent No.6-CBI ***

HARPREET SINGH BRAR J. (Oral)

1. This is the second petition filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as ‘Cr.P.C.’) seeking issuance of directions for reinvestigation of the case stemming from FIR No.153 dated 19.08.2021 registered under Section 22 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter ‘the NDPS Act’) at Police Station Phase-I SAS Nagar, by the Central Bureau of Investigation or any other independent agency to ensure a free and fair investigation.

2. Briefly, the facts, as alleged, are that on 19.08.2021, around 8:20 PM, the petitioner was seen coming on a scooter make Activa bearing No. PB-65-G- 8611. On seeing the police party at the check point at Amb Wala Park, the petitioner tried to turn away but was apprehended on the spot. On inspection, 360 tablets of Limotel (containing the salt-Diphenoxylate hydrochloride and atropine sulphate), 450 tablets of Becalm, 1050 tablets of Anzilum (both containing the salt Alprazolam) and 100 tablets of Tramadol (containing the salt Tramadol hydrochloride) were recovered from him. Thereafter, a ruqa was sent by SI-

Kulwant Singh, and FIR(supra) was registered.

3. Learned counsel for petitioner inter alia contends that the petitioner is a senior citizen and a licensed chemist. He is the sole proprietor of M/s Surindera Medicos, who has been in this business for the last 30 years. A perusal of the CCTV footage from the day would indicate that at about 7:37 PM, the petitioner parked his scooter, 30 meters from his shop. At 8:20 PM, a man in a blue T-shirt can be seen tampering with the same and trying to open the dickey of the scooter. Between 8:33 to 8:40 PM, four police officials can be seen around the scooter and subsequently, at 8:44 PM, the petitioner is seen to be taken away by the said police officials. In fact, the police personnel are seen to be trying to open the scooter and take things from it. The said footage was sent to the FSL and it was reported that the same is genuine and has not been tampered with (Annexure P-13).Vide order dated 08.03.2022 (Annexure P-14), this Court in the case bearing No. CRM-M-41963-2021, stayed the proceedings and called for a fresh report under Section 173(8) Cr.P.C. from an SIT. A three-member SIT was constituted on 01.06.2022, which gave its report on 09.01.2023 (Annexure P-16). However, the electronic evidence in the form of CCTV footage has not been considered by it, in a bid to shield its own officers. In fact, it has claimed that the scooter in the footage is white in colour, whereas the scooter apprehended is silver. Yet again, a perusal of the video would make it clear that the scooter is silver in colour. One of the police officials namely Faryad Ahmad, dressed in civil clothes, was also seen enquiring about the owner of the scooter bearing no. ‘8611.’ This conduct of the investigating authority requires criminal prosecution of the erring officials under Sections 58 and 59 of the NDPS Act. Learned counsel places reliance on the judgments rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in R.S. Sodhi vs. State of U.P. 1994 AIR SC 38, Rubabbuddin Sheikh vs. State of Gujarat (2010) 2 SCC 200 and Disha vs. State of Gujarat 2011(3)

R.C.R.(Criminal) 694.

4. Leaned State counsel refers to the status report dated 19.07.2023 and submits that the petitioner has alleged that two persons namely Farehad Ahmad and Jugraj are seen on the CCTV footage. However, their faces are not properly recognizable. Further, there is a pos