Present: Mr.Ashwani Kumar Dhingra Advocate Vs. State of Punjab - Court Judgment

CRM No.M-30864 of 2013(O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM No.M-30864 of 2013(O&M) Date of Decision:23.09.2013 Dharminder Singh .....Petitioner Versus State of Punjab .....Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR. Present: Mr.Ashwani Kumar Dhingra, Advocate, for the petitioner. **** MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR , J.(oral) As is evident from the record that, the first petition bearing CRM.No.M-13371 of 2013 for regular bail filed by the petitioner, was dismissed as withdrawn, by way of order dated 29.04.2013 by this Court.

2. The contour of the facts & material, which needs a necessary mention for the limited purpose of deciding the instant 2nd petition for regular bail filed by petitioner and emanating from the record is that, on 19.06.2012, a police-party headed by SI Kikkar Singh was present at the place of occurrence, in connection with patrolling and checking of suspected persons. Meanwhile, the petitioner and his other co-accused Lal Singh @ Lala son of Balbir Singh, came on a scooter. After seeing the police party, they got perplexed and turned the scooter back. However, they were apprehended by the police-party.

3. Having completed all the statutory formalities and in the wake of search, 3 kgs. opium was recovered from their possession. On the basis of aforesaid recovery, the present case was registered against Rani Seema S the petitioner and his other co-accused, vide FIR No.71 dated 2013.09.25 12:26 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh CRM No.M-30864 of 2013(O&M) 2 19.06.2012, on accusation of having committed the offences punishable under Sections 18 & 25 of the Narcotic Drugs & Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter to be referred as “the NDPS Act”.) by the police of Police Station Ghall Khurd, District Ferozepur.

4. Having exercised his right and remained unsuccessful before the Additional Sessions Judge, now the petitioner has preferred the present 2nd petition for the grant of regular bail, invoking the provisions of Section 439 Cr.P.C.

5. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner, going through the record with his valuable help and after deep consideration of the entire matter, to my mind, there is no merit in the present petition in this context.

6. Ex facie, the argument of the learned counsel that, since the petitioner has been falsely implicated and only 3 kgs. opium was recovered from the possession of two persons, so, he is entitled to the concession of regular bail, is neither tenable nor the observations of the Hon'ble Apex Court in case Amar Singh Ramji Bhai Barot Versus State of Gujarat,(2005) 7 Supreme Court Cases 550, are at all applicable to the facts of the present case, wherein, while deciding the regular criminal appeal, on the peculiar facts & special circumstances of that case and while interpreting the provisions of un-amended NDPS Act, it was observed that there was no evidence to suggest that there was any such abetment or criminal conspiracy within the meaning of Section 29 of the NDPS Act, as the accused were individually carrying the recovered substances. There can hardly be any dispute with regard to the aforesaid observations, but to me, the same would not come to the rescue Rani Seema S201309.25 12:26 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh CRM No.M-30864 of 2013(O&M) 3 of the petitioner in the instant controversy.

7. As is evident from the record, there are direct allegations that commercial quantity of 3 kgs. opium was recovered from the possession of the petitioner and his other co-accused from the same very scooter. In that eventuality, the provision of Section 37 of the NDPS Act is fully applicable in this case. Therefore, no special ground, much less cogent, to grant the concession of regular bail to the petitioner in a case of recovery of commercial quantity of 3 kgs.opium, is made out in the obtaining circumstances of the case.

8. In the light of aforesaid reasons, taking into consideration the involvement of the petitioner in a very grave and heinous offences and without commenting further anything on merits, lest it may prejudice the case of either side during the course of trial of the main case, as there is no merit, therefore, the instant 2nd petition for regular bail filed by the petitioner is hereby dismissed as such. Needless to mention that nothing observed, here-in-above, would reflect, in any manner, on merits of the main case, as the same has been so recorded for a limited purpose of deciding the present petition for regular bail only. September 23, 2013 (MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR) seema JUDGE Rani Seema S201309.25 12:26 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh