SUKHWANT SINGH Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Prayer in the present petition is for grant of regular bail to the petitioner in FIR No.72 dtd. 18/5/2021 registered under Sec. 20 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter to be referred as "the Act of 1985"), Sec. 25 of the Arms Act, 1959 and Ss. 395, 427, 216 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 at Police Station Satnali, District Mahendergarh (District Narnaul).

(2.) The prosecution case is that secret information had been received to the effect that one Canter had been parked near Village Barda and since, there was suspicion that there were some intoxicant substances in the same, and finding the said information to be credible, a police team was formed to conduct the raid. Efforts were made to join witnesses from the public but the people showed their inability to do so and when the police party reached near the Canter, no person was found present near it and thereafter, a notice under Sec. 42 of the Act of 1985 was prepared and was forwarded to the Duty Magistrate. The Duty Magistrate reached at the spot and in his presence, the search of the Canter was conducted. During the search, 17 quintals 12 kg and 760 grams of huge quantity of ganja was recovered from the said Canter. During the search of cabin of the Canter, one Driving Licence issued in the name of Ravi Kumar son of Om Parkash and one Aadhaar Card also, in the name of Ravi Kumar, were recovered and the FIR was registered against the unidentified persons. Thereafter, co-accused Sandeep, Ajit, Rohit and Kuldeep were arrested. The present petitioner was also arrested on 25/5/2021.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the petitioner was not named in the FIR and he has nothing to do with the said occurrence inasmuch as neither he is the owner of the Canter nor is alleged to be the driver of the Canter. It is further submitted that no recovery has been effected from the petitioner nor the petitioner can be stated to be in conscious possession of any intoxicant much less intoxicant substance that has been recovered. It is argued that even as per the alleged disclosure statement of the petitioner (Annexure P-2), only role which has been attributed to the petitioner is that he had promised the co-accused, who had allegedly brought Ganja from the State of Orissa, to inform them about safe passage in the area of Satnali. It is further argued that even as per the said disclosure statement (Annexure P-2), the petitioner was not the person, who was either driving the Canter or was even in the Canter and was stated to be in a Duster Car which was following the Canter. It is contended that it is Ravi Kumar, who was the driver of the Canter and the said Ganja was stated to be allegedly purchased from State of Orissa, by Lakhmi and Kuldeep. It is further contended that there is no allegation against the petitioner that he had either purchased the intoxicant/narcotic substance or sold the same or was in conscious possession of the same or was even present in the Canter in which the said contraband was being carried. It is stated that no recovery has been effected from the petitioner and thus, reliance has been placed upon an order passed by Coordinate Bench of this Court dtd. 17/6/2020 in CRM-M-12051-2020 titled Mewa Singh Vs. State of Punjab, and an order of another Coordinate Bench dtd. 16/7/2021 passed in CRM-M-12997-2020 titled as Paint Singh Vs. State of Haryana to contend that in such like cases if a person has been proceeded against only on the basis of disclosure statement and no recovery has been effected from the petitioner, then he should be granted the benefit of bail. It is also submitted that the petitioner is not involved in any other case.