Punjab-Haryana High Court
Dara Singh vs The State Of Punjab on 27 August, 2009
Author: Rajan Gupta
Bench: Rajan Gupta
CRM No. M-17072 of 2009 1
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB &
HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH.
CRM No. M-17072 of 2009 (O&M)
Date of decision: 27.08.2009
Dara Singh ...Petitioner
Versus
The State of Punjab ...Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJAN GUPTA
Present: Mr. Vinod Ghai, Advocate, for the petitioner.
Mr. Shailesh Gupta, DAG, Punjab.
Rajan Gupta, J (oral).
This is a petition under Section 439 Cr.P.C. seeking regular bail in a case registered against the petitioner under Sections 22/61/85 of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as the "NDPS Act") at Police Station Sohana, District SAS Nagar, Mohali, vide FIR No.63 dated 28th August, 2008.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the petitioner was only a carrier. The contraband in fact belonged to one Gurdarshan Singh. The petitioner is a retired person and is 63 years of age and thus deserves to be enlarged on bail.
Learned counsel for the State has, however, opposed the prayer for bail on the ground that recovery of 1 Kg. 230 grams of cocaine was effected from the accused in the presence of Superintendent of Police. According to the the counsel, Section 37 of the NDPS Act CRM No. M-17072 of 2009 2 would be attracted to the facts of the case and thus, the petitioner is not entitled to the concession of bail during the pendency of the trial.
I have heard learned counsel for the parties and given careful thought to the facts of the case.
On 28th August, 2008, the police received information that Dara Singh (petitioner) would be travelling in a white coloured Maruti Car from Zirakpur side to village Kandala and in case intercepted, contraband could be recovered from him. The police found the information reliable and laid a picket (Naka). The car was intercepted on 29th August, 2008. On search, cocaine was found hidden in the same underneath the seat of the driver. The police thereafter conducted its proceedings and took samples of cocaine for sending the same to the FSL. The petitioner made a disclosure statement that in fact the cocaine belonged to one Gurdarshan Singh and he had issued two cheques for Rs.6.00 lacs and 4.00 lacs dated 20th August, 2008 and 24th August, 2008 to be paid to Gurdarshan Singh in lieu of the contraband given to the petitioner. The cheques in question were later recovered from the residence of the petitioner.
It is evident that the car being driven by the petitioner was intercepted by the police and cocaine weighing 1 Kg. 230 grams was recovered from the same. The petitioner was apprehended on the spot. In view of the heavy quantity of cocaine, recovered from the petitioner, Section 37 of the NDPS Act would be attracted to the facts of the instant case. The submission of the counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner CRM No. M-17072 of 2009 3 was only a carrier of the contraband and in fact, the same belonged to Gurdarshan Singh, is devoid of merit. Learned counsel has referred to order dated March 26, 2009 by a coordinate bench of this court (S.S. Saron, J.), according to which Gurdarshan Singh Sodhi was enlarged on bail. He has claimed parity with the said accused. However, a perusal of the said order reveals that name of Gurdarshan Singh figured in disclosure statement of the petitioner. He was not apprehended on the spot. The court, thus, enlarged the said accused on bail on the ground that allegations based on disclosure statement, could be looked into at the stage of trial after evidence is led before the court. I am of the considered view that petitioner cannot claim to be similarly placed as Gurdarshan Singh.
In view of non-commercial quantity of contraband and Section 37 of the NDPS Act, which would be attracted in the instant case, I do not find it a fit case for grant of bail. The petition is devoid of merit and the same is hereby dismissed.
(RAJAN GUPTA) JUDGE August 27, 2009 'rajpal'