JASWINDER SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ONE Kg of opium was recovered from the petitioner. It is not disputed that the person who got the FIR registered has also continued with the investigation of the case. Furthermore, the perusal of the case prima facie shows that the petitioner has not been made aware of his legal right to have his search effected in the presence of a Magistrate/Gazetted Officer. The matter, therefore, seems to be squarely covered by the judgment of this Court in Risala v. State of Punjab, 1996(2) RCR 707. Apart from this, Mr. Dhillon brought to the notice of this Court a resolution passed by the Panchayat, which shows that the petitioner was picked up by the police alongwith three other persons from their respective houses in the village. The members of the Panchayat went to the police station to find out the reason for which the petitioner has been taken into police custody. It is categorically stated in the resolution that the ex-Sarpanch Surinder Singh was never joined as an independent witness as is claimed in the FIR. There is no other material placed on the record to show that the petitioner has been earlier involved in any case under the NDPS Act. Prima facie, it appears to be a case of false implication. In view of the above, bail to the satisfaction of CJM, Jalandhar. Petition allowed.