Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Punjab-Haryana High Court

Jagroop Singh vs State Of Haryana on 21 August, 2014

Author: Mehinder Singh Sullar

Bench: Mehinder Singh Sullar

            CRM No. M-25415 of 2014                                                       1

                               IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT
                                             CHANDIGARH


                                                                CRM No.M-25415 of 2014

                                                                Date of decision : 21.08.2014

            Jagroop Singh
                                                                                      ...Petitioner
                                                       Versus


            State of Haryana
                                                                                    ..Respondent



            CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR


            Present:             Dr. Govinder Singh Brar, Advocate for the petitioner.

            Mehinder Singh Sullar, J. (Oral)

Petitioner-Jagroop Singh son of Charanjeet Singh, has preferred the instant petition, for the grant of concession of anticipatory bail, in a case registered against him along with his other co-accused, vide FIR No.155 dated 07.08.2013 (Annexure P1), on accusation of having committed the offences punishable under Sections 15, 16, 27-A of The Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter to be referred as 'the NDPS Act') and Sections 420, 467, 468 and 471 IPC, by the police of Police Station Kallanwali, District Sirsa.

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

2014.08.22 11:52 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh CRM No. M-25415 of 2014 2

3. Ex facie the arguments of learned counsel that petitioner was not arrested at the spot and since he has been falsely implicated in this case by the police, so, he is entitled to concession of pre-arrest bail, are not only devoid of merits but misplaced as well.

4. The pith and substance of the prosecution version, inter-alia, is that on 07.08.2013, a police party headed by SHO Vikram Singh, was present at T-point Odhan within the area of Kallanwali. He received a secret information that petitioner, who is a brother in-law of his co-accused Makhan Singh son of Gurmail Singh, Lawar Singh @ Bachi son of Mahinder Singh, Dara Singh son of Gagan Singh, his son Sona Singh and Dungar Singh son of Basant Singh, would smuggle a heavy quantity of poppy husk, for illegal sale, in a red coloured truck, bearing registration No. PB-07-0346. Believing the secret information to be true, SHO arranged the barrier (Nakabandi), sent the writing (ruqa) to the police station and accordingly informed the DSP, Ellenabad. As soon as, the police party reached near brick kiln on muddy (kutcha) way in between village Pipli to Asheer, in the meantime, a truck was found parked there. Two tractor trollies and a car were also standing behind the truck. The accused, having unloaded the bags from the truck, placed the same into the tractor trollies and car. The police party heard accused Lawar Singh @ Bachi saying "Dungar, 10 bags of poppy husk has been put in his trolley, again said, Makha 10 bags have too put in his trolley and further stated that he has also put 5 bags of poppy husk in his car". The police party raided and apprehended Lawar Singh @ Bachi at the spot, whereas, remaining accused have slipped away from the spot taking the benefit of darkness. ARVIND SHARMA 2014.08.22 11:52 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh CRM No. M-25415 of 2014 3

5. Having completed all the codal/statutory formalities and in the wake of search, 100 bags weighing 40 kg each (40 quintals) and 25 bags were recovered from two tractor trollies and car, weighing 20 kg each, which were taken into possession by the police vide separate recovery memos.

6. Meaning thereby, commercial quantity of 125 bags, containing 44 quintals of poppy husk were recovered from the possession of the petitioner and his other indicated co-accused, fully attracting the bar of bail as contemplated under Section 37 of the NDPS Act. Sequelly, the mere fact that petitioner has run away from the place of recovery, after taking the advantage of darkness, in violation of law, ipso facto, is not a ground, much less cogent, to grant him the concession of pre-arrest bail, as contrary urged on his behalf. On the one hand, he was smuggling the commercial quantity of poppy husk along with his other co-accused and on the other end, he has slipped away from the place of recovery, in order to cause disappearance of evidence of offence, leaving the police party in lurch. What cannot possibly be denied that tendency and frequency of smuggling commercial quantity of poppy husk by such accused for their illegal gains, adversely affecting the health of the society, have been tremendously increasing day by day and it needs to be curbed with heavy hands.

7. Therefore, taking into consideration, the nature & gravity of the accusation, the possibility of petitioner to flee from justice and the fact of recovery of pointed commercial quantity of 44 quintals of poppy husk, to me, he is not entitled to the concession of anticipatory bail in the obtaining circumstances of the case.

2014.08.22 11:52 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh CRM No. M-25415 of 2014 4

8. Not only that, it is not a matter of dispute that petition for regular bail filed by Dara Singh, similarly situated co-accused of the petitioner in this very case, was dismissed by this Court, by virtue of order dated 28.04.2014, rendered in CRM-M-13266 of 2014, which, in substance, is as under:-

"5. Precisely, the prosecution claimed that, the police received a secret information that Makhan Singh and petitioner Dara Singh along with his son Sona Singh and others were unloading the poppy husk from the truck, into tractor trolleys and a car. In the wake of raid, 4400 KGs poppy husk was recovered from the possession of the accused. Meaning thereby, since the commercial quantity of poppy husk was recovered from the possession of the accused, so, the provisions of Section 37 of the NDPS Act, are fully applicable to the instant case and the petitioner is not entitled to bail in this relevant connection.

6. There is yet another aspect of the matter, which can be viewed entirely from a different angle. It is not a matter of dispute that petitioner is a habitual offender and he is involved in following other 11 such criminal cases: -

1. FIR No. 97 dated 15.6.2004, U/s 61/1/4 Ex. Act, PS. KWL, convicted on 18.12.2008.

2. FIR No. 127 dated 25.7.2004 U/s 61/1/14 Ex. Act P.S KWL, convicted on 18.12.2008.

3. FIR No. 96 dated 12.6.2006 U/s 15/16/61/85 NDPS Act, P.S. KWL, convicted on 22.11.2008.

4. FIR No. 222 dated 11.11.2006 under Section 15/16/61/85 NDPS Act, P.S. KWL, convicted on 14.8.2008.

5. FIR No.4 dated 05.01.08 U/S 15/16/61/85 NDPS Act, P.S. KWL, convicted on 26.11.2008.

6. FIR No. 63 dated 2.5.2008 U/S 15/16/61/85 NDPS Act, P.S. KWL, convicted on 14.5.2011.

7. FIR No.50 dated 26.1.1998 U/s 15/16/61/85 NDPS Act, P.S. KWL.

8. FIR No.139 dated 11.7.2007 U/s 15/16/61/85 NDPS Act,P.S. KWL.

9. FIR No. 91 dated 15.5.2002 U/S 15/16/61/85 NDPS Act, P.S. Sadar Dabwali.

10. FIR No. 163 dated 26.9.2005 U/s 15/16/61/85 NDPS Act, P.S. KWL.

11. FIR No. 50 dated 27.7.2011, under Section 15/16/61/85 NDPS Act, Police Station Sardulgarh Punjab."

7. Therefore, taking taking into consideration the recovery of the commercial quantity of the poppy husk from the possession of the accused and the fact that the petitioner is a habitual offender, to my mind, he is not entitled to the benefit of regular bail, in the obtaining circumstances of the case."

9. That means, petitioner belong to a gang of smuggler including Dara Singh co-accused, who is involved in indicated nine criminal cases under the NDPS Act and two cases under the Excise Act. Therefore, he is not entitled to concession of pre-arrest bail as well.

10. In the light of aforesaid reasons, taking into consideration the totality of facts and circumstances, emanating from the record, as discussed here-in-above and without commenting further anything on merits, lest it may prejudice the case of either side, during the course of trial of main case, as there is no merit, therefore, the instant petition for anticipatory bail is dismissed as such.

11. Needless to mention that, nothing observed here-in-above, would reflect, in any manner, on merits of the case, as the same has been so recorded for a limited purpose of deciding the present petition for pre-arrest bail only.

Sd/-

            21.08.2014                                                  (Mehinder Singh Sullar)
            AS                                                                  Judge




ARVIND SHARMA
2014.08.22 11:52
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
Chandigarh