MANPREET SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner seeks grant of regular bail in a case registered against him vide FIR No. 78 dated 4.4.2019, at Police Station: City Moga, District Moga, under Section 22 of the NDPS Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act').

(2.) The case of prosecution is that on 4.4.2019, when ASI Malkit Singh along with other police officials was conducting checking of vehicles during days of election, then at about 8:50 PM two clean shaven boys who were riding a black coloured motorcycle were signaled to stop but the said boys instead of stopping tried to turn back the motorcycle. However, the police was able to nab the said boys. Upon enquiry, the driver of the motorcycle disclosed his name as Anil Goyal while the pillion rider disclosed his name as Manpreet Singh (petitioner). Since a black coloured bag was lying on the thighs of Anil Goyal, an offer in terms of Section 50 of the Act was extended to him. Since Manpreet Singh (petitioner) was also found to be carrying a black coloured envelope in his hand, he was also extended an offer in terms of Section 50 of the Act. As they opted to be searched in presence of a gazetted officer, DSP Paramjit Singh was requested to come to the spot. Upon his arrival, search of both the aforesaid persons was conducted in his presence. While the bag lying on the thighs of Anil Goyal was found to contain 2500 intoxicating tablets, the envelope carried by the petitioner Manpreet Singh was found to contain 1400 intoxicating tablets. Later, upon chemical examination, the tablets were found to contain 'Tramadol' which is listed at serial No. 30 in the list of psychotropic substances.

(3.) The learned counsel for petitioner has submitted that he has falsely been implicated in the present case and that the recovery has been foisted upon him as would be evident from the fact that there is no independent witness to the alleged recovery of contraband. It has further been submitted that the very fact that gazetted officer of police department was called would cast serious doubt on the veracity of the case of the prosecution. It has also been submitted that since the son of the petitioner is mentally challenged and the petitioner as on date has been behind bars since the last more than one year and 9 months, the petitioner deserves to be released on bail .