IQBAL SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a petition under Section 439 of Cr.P.C for grant of regular bail to the petitioner in case FIR No.67 dated 23.06.2010 under Sections 20/61/85 of NDPS Act registered at Police Station Raja Sansi, District Amritsar.

(2.) IT was contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that the co-accused-Honey of the present petitioner is the son of a working police head constable and owner of the motor cycle. He lives in the same locality and is a notorious kind of person. Even on the date of incident, said Honey had taken the present petitioner on his motor cycle on the pretext that he is to get some articles from Ajnala and had asked the help of the present petitioner on the ground that the present petitioner can hold the said articles while sitting on the pillion and had offered ` 50/- to the petitioner.

(3.) SURPRISINGLY, although the petitioner and the son of the police official was together on the motor cycle, Honey is shown in possession of non-commercial quantity and the commercial quantity was implanted upon the present petitioner. Accordingly, notice of motion was issued for 09.11.2010. On 09.11.2010, ASI Mukhtiar Singh was present in the Court but did not have the police file. Accordingly, in the interest of justice, the matter was adjourned for today i.e. 16.11.2010. Today, ASI Tarsem Singh is present in the Court and states that he is not aware as to whether the said Honey is the son of a police head constable and neither he has gone through the file as the same was handed over to him last night. Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed on record the order dated 25.08.2010 passed by the Special Court, Amritsar, vide which, Honey has been enlarged on bail having been shown in possession of non-commercial quantity. The petitioner is a rickshaw puller having three minor children and his wife is working as a maid in the locality, whereas, Honey, who is the son of a working police head constable and owner of the motor cycle. Thus, prima facie, there appears to be merit in the contention raised by learned counsel for the petitioner that the present petitioner has been made a scope goat.