DARSHAN SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard counsel for the parties.

(2.) The petitioner seeks regular bail in a case registered against him on 05.09.2009 for the offence under Sec. 15 of the Narcotic Drugs And Psychotropic Substances Act.

(3.) The FIR, in the case, has been registered on the information sent by Purshotam Singh Inspector who, on 05.09.2009, along with other police officials were on patrolling duty and carrying out checking at check point that had been set up at SYL Canal, Chunni Khurd. The vehicles coming from the Chandigarh side were being checked with the help of other police officials. In the meantime, Mandeep Singh alias Lucky came there and Purshotam Singh (Inspector) was talking to him. In the meantime, a silver colour Honda City car came from Chandigarh side which was signalled to stop but the driver of the said car tried to run away. With the help of other police officials, the car was stopped and the driver of the car disclosed his name as Darshan Singh (petitioner). He did not give satisfactory reply on interrogation, which raised a suspicion that he was carrying some intoxicating material. A search was carried out after Crl. Misc. No.M-25554 of 2010 ::2:: following the procedure and by calling Deputy Superintendent of Police Rajwinder Singh, PPS Bassi, Pathana at the place of incident. On the search of the vehicle, 12 white colour plastic bags were found in the car. They were found to contain poppy husk and each bag weighed 17 Kgs. In this manner, 204 Kgs of poppy husk was recovered. The 24 sample packets from each of the bags were taken and were sealed with the seal 'PS' and 'RS'. The Honda City car was also taken into possession by the police. The petitioner could not produce any licence or permit for keeping the poppy husk. Therefore, it was observed that he has committed an offence under Sec. 15 of the Narcotic Drugs And Psychotropic Substances Act. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted certified copies of the interim orders passed in this case to contend that despite several adjournments, no prosecution witness is being examined.