Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2002 DIGILAW 94 (PNJ)

Sukhraj Singh @ Raju v. State Of Punjab

2002-01-18

R.C.KATHURIA

body2002
Judgment R.C.Kathuria, J. 1. Sukhraj Singh alias Raju, petitioner-accused seeks bail in case bearing FIR No. 92 dated 10.5.2001 registered under Section 18 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as `the Act) with Police Station, Nurmahal. 2. The accusations against the petitioner are that on 10.5.2001 ASI Bhagwan Dass was present in the area of Kandola Kalan when he intercepted the petitioner-accused and recovered 1 Kg.-10 Grams of opium from the bag carried by him. The recovery proceedings were completed at the spot. After completion of the investigation, challan had been filed and the case is pending trial in the Court of Special Judge, Jalandhar. 3. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Deputy Advocate General, Punjab for the State. 4. Learned counsel representing the petitioner-accused, while pressing for bail, has mainly contended before me that factually the recovery was made from one Jasbir Singh as reported in the news item published in Daily Ajit dated 14.5.2001, while the petitioner-accused was falsely implicated and linked with the crime. Additionally, it was pointed out that the Investigating Officer had failed to fix his own seal and no independent witness was associated at the time of recovery. It was also submitted that the petitioner had been in custody from the date of his arrest and in view of the amended provisions, the bar under Section 37 of the Act is not applicable as the quantity recovered does not fall within the purview of commercial quantity as per notification dated 19.10.2001 issued by the Central Government. 5. While opposing the submissions made, it has been contended by the learned State counsel that the recovery of opium made from the possession of the accused is much more than the small quantity and benefit of bail should not be extended to him. He has also urged that the illegalities in the recovery proceedings projected from the side of the petitioner-accused do not, in any manner, affect the validity of the recovery made. 6. I need not go into the merits of the respective stands taken by the parties as the same can be effectively decided during the trial of the case. One patent fact which cannot be ignored at this stage is that the petitioner- accused has been in custody since 10.5.2001 that is for a period of more than eight months. 7. I need not go into the merits of the respective stands taken by the parties as the same can be effectively decided during the trial of the case. One patent fact which cannot be ignored at this stage is that the petitioner- accused has been in custody since 10.5.2001 that is for a period of more than eight months. 7. Taking into account totality of the circumstances on record the bail application is accepted and it is directed that the petitioner shall be admitted to bail on his furnishing bail bond in the sum of Rs. 30,000/- with a surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court undertaking therein to appear till the decision of the case. If the petitioner commits any default in this regard, the learned trial Judge would be at liberty to take action in accordance with law.