Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2002 DIGILAW 391 (PNJ)

Sulakhan v. State Of Punjab

2002-04-10

R.C.KATHURIA

body2002
Judgment R.C.Kathuria, J. 1. Sulakhan, petitoner seeks anticipatory bail in case bearing FIR No. 101 dated 27.5.2001 registered under Section 15 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) with Police Station City, Nawanshahr. 2. The prosecution allegations against the petitioner-accused are that on 27.5.2001, ASI Bikkar Singh, Police Station, Sadar, Nawanshahr in the company of other police officials was present at Langroya in connection with Nakabandi. He received a secret information that Sulakhan, petitoner-accused, was selling poppy husk on the link road of Bhan Majra and could be caught if raid was conducted. Finding this information reliable, Bachna Ram was associated with the police party and the police party proceeded in a private vehicle towards the link road of Bhan Majra. They noticed the accused standing near a bag of poppy husk. On seeing the police party the petitoner-accused ran towards the fields. He was identified by Bachna Ram. Efforts to apprehend the accused proved futile. Thereafter, presence of Balbir Singh, D.S.P., Nawanshahr was secured and during the seizure proceedings the bag was found containing 40 Kgs. of poppy husk. The recovery proceedings were completed at the spot. On these allegations the present case was registered. 3. I have heard learned counsel for the parties at length. 4. Learned counsel for the petitoner, while pressing for his bail, has mainly contended before me that a concocted story has been put up by the prosecution in order to falsely implicate the petitoner and fasten the recovery of poppy husk in this case though factually he was not present at the place of recovery. It was further pointed out by him that compliance of Sections 42 and 50 of the Act have not been done. Additionally, it was submitted by him that the petitioner-accused was granted interim bail by this Court as far back as on June 19, 2001 (by Honble Mr. Justice R.L. Anand) and thereafter he had joined the investigating and for that reason his custodial interrogation is not required. 5. Learned State counsel while opposing the submissions made on behalf of the petitioner has contended that custodial interrogation of the petitioner- accused is needed in order to find out the source of the poppy husk recovered from his possession. Justice R.L. Anand) and thereafter he had joined the investigating and for that reason his custodial interrogation is not required. 5. Learned State counsel while opposing the submissions made on behalf of the petitioner has contended that custodial interrogation of the petitioner- accused is needed in order to find out the source of the poppy husk recovered from his possession. It has not been disputed on behalf of the prosecution during the course of arguments that substantial changes have been brought in the Act by the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (Amendment) Act, 2001 and in view of the notification dated 19.10.2001 issued by the Central Government alleged recovery of poppy husk has to be construed as more than small quantity and less that commercial quantity. It is also not disputed that though the petitioner-accused was not apprehended at the time of recovery but subsequently he joined the investigation in pursuance of the direction of this Court. Therefore, adequate opportunity for interrogation of the petitioner- accused has already been availed of by the prosecution. 6. The other plea with regard to compliance of Sections 42 and 50 of the Act as such cannot be made the basis for extending the benefit of bail as it would be premature to go into this question. 7. Taking into account the legislative interdict and shift in the sentencing policy and the liberalisation of the rigid conditions governing the grant of bail and the fact that he had already been granted interim bail, I am of the view that totality of circumstances warrant that the petitioner-accused be extended the benefit of anticipatory bail. Consequently his bail application is accepted. It is directed that in the event of his arrest he shall be admitted to bail by the Arresting Officer on his furnishing bail bond and surety bond to his satisfaction undertaking therein to abide by the conditions laid down under Section 438(2) of the Code. Petition allowed.