MURTI Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present petition has been filed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for the grant of regular bail in FIR No.0577 dated 23.08.2019 under Section 61 of the Punjab Excise Act, 1914, under Section 20(b) of NDPS Act, 1985 and under Section 34 IPC, registered at Police Station Model Town, Rewari, Haryana.

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner has, inter alia, submitted that the petitioner was wrongly roped up in the present FIR because even as per the allegations of the prosecution, during the raid which was conducted at the house of the petitioner, three pouches of Ganja weighing 18 gms were recovered from the petitioner and thereafter, 1.120 Kg Ganja was recovered from the car of the son of the petitioner. He has further submitted that the son of the petitioner has already been arrested by the police. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that the petitioner is not involved in any other case and she has been roped up in the present FIR only because she is the mother of Sunder. He has further submitted that being mother of one of the accused, can not be the ground for proceeding against the petitioner. He has also submitted that the petitioner is in custody since 23.08.2018 and investigation is already complete and charges have been framed. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that out of 18 witnesses, 04 have been examined and no material witness is left.

(3.) Per contra, learned State counsel, on instructions from SI Rohtas Singh, has submitted that in the present case, recovery of Ganja from the petitioner was not of commercial quantity. He has further submitted that initially three pouches of Ganja weighing 18 gms were recovered from the petitioner and thereafter from the son of the petitioner, 1.120 kg Ganja was recovered. Learned State counsel has further submitted that since the matter involves the offence under the NDPS Act, therefore, he has opposed the bail to the petitioner. He has not disputed the fact that the petitioner is not involved in any other case, but her son is involved in some other cases. He also does not dispute that the petitioner is in custody since 23.08.2018 and investigation is already complete and charges have been framed. Learned State counsel has further submitted that out of 18 witnesses, 04 have been examined and no material witness is left.