BABAR SINGH Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD . The case against the petitioner was registered on 15.8.1999 (wrongly mentioned as 17.8.1999) after a raid had been conducted at his house in pursuance of a secret information that if the same is searched a large quantity of poppy husk could be recovered. After the receipt of the information the Investigating Officer had joined one Rajesh Kumar, Naib Tehsildar, Ratia and raided the house of the petitioner and conducted search in the presence of his wife. During the raid at the house an almirah was found in the verandah of the house and in the north-west corner of that almirah, the opening of an underground bunker was there from where there bags each containing 40 kilograms of poppy husk were recovered.

(2.) THE petitioner had initially moved this Court through Crl. Misc. No. 2852-M of 2000, which was dismissed as withdrawn on 31.1.2000 with liberty to approach the learned Sessions Judge at the first instance on or before 3.2.2000. In pursuance of this order, the petitioner is stated to have approached the Sessions Judge, Hisar and his application for anticipatory bail was dismissed on 31.3.2000. A perusal of Annexure P-2, a copy of the order passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Fatheabad indicates that in case F.I.R. No. 231 dated 15.8.1999, the Court was disposing of the third application for anticipatory bail, the first application having been disposed of by the Additional Sessions Judge, Hisar on 5.11.1999 and the second application on 14.3.2000. From this, it is apparent that when the petitioner moved this Court in Crl. M. No. 2582-M of 2000 he has withheld the information about his application for anticipatory bail having been dismissed by the Additional Sessions Judge on 5.11.1999 and the order passed thereon. It is also apparent from this annexure that the petitioner has also withheld the order passed on the second application for anticipatory bail, which was dismissed on 14.3.2000. The case against the petitioner was registered on 15.8.1999 and since that date, he has not only evaded his arrest but has also not joined the investigation. It is also clear that in order to achieve this purpose he has been withholding information regarding previous decisions in the application filed by him before this Court, which itself would be sufficient to dis-entitle the petitioner to the grant of relief sought for. Even on merits, the only ground on which the application is being pressed before me is the non-compliance of the provisions of Section 50 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act inasmuch as at the time of the search the police did not associate a gazetted officer and had for reasons best known to it sought the assistance from Shri Rajesh Kumar, who was posted as Naib Tehsildar at Ratia. The benefit of this lapse no doubt the petitioner would be entitled to get at the time when the case is put up for trial but taking into consideration the conduct of the petitioner as well as the casualness of the approach of the Investigating Officer towards the apprehension of the accused and his apparent disconcern about pursuing the investigation to its logical end i.e. whether the petitioner has stocked other narcotic drugs at some other places as also the source from which he gets the same, I feel that a case for grant of anticipatory bail is not made out as this would enable the petitioner to avoid custodial investigation which in this case would be necessary to find out who is the kingpin responsible for conducting this trade. Armed with an order of anticipatory bail, the petitioner would not answer any question which may be put to him and would render further investigation of the case a mere formality.

(3.) A copy of this order be forwarded to the Director General of Police, Haryana for taking such steps as he may deem necessary for improving the quality of investigation which is being conducted in this case and in other cases of NDPS Act which are being investigated in the State of Haryana. Petition dismissed.