SUNIL KUMAR Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner has filed petition under Sec. 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short "the Code") for grant of regular bail in case FIR No.69 dtd. 12/8/2019 under Ss. 22 and 29 of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short "the NDPS Act") (Sec. 29 the NDPS Act was added later on), registered at Police Station S.G.N. Dev Thermal Plant, Bathinda (Annexure P-l).

(2.) FIR (Annexure P-l) came to be registered on the basis of secret information that Sunil Kumar alias Sonu (petitioner herein), who is confined in Central Jail, Bathinda, in FIR No.100 dtd. 11/7/2019 registered for offence under Sec. 22 of the NDPS Act at Police StationMaur, District Bathinda has stored a huge quantity of Narcotic Drugs in a godown of Transport Nagar, Bathinda.

(3.) Counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner, who was in custody when FIR (Annexure P-l) was lodged, was brought on production warrants and a recovery of 2,34,000 Tredol-100 tablets containing salt Tramadol Hydrochloride, was made from the godown of Kothari Transport, Bathinda. Counsel urges that the only incriminatory piece of evidence against the petitioner is the statement of Krishan Bansal (Annexure P-8) recorded under Sec. 161 of the Code wherein he had stated that co-accused Varinder Kumar came to the premises of the Transport Company enquiring about a consignment and when he was told that it has not been received, he said that the same will be collected by Sunil Kumar alias Sonu (present petitioner). Counsel submits that co-accused-Varinder Kumar has been ordered to be released on regular bail by this Court vide order dtd. 28/7/2021 passed in CRM-M-40428-2020. It is his contention that the consignment was sent in the name of M/s BMW Medicos, which is owned by one Narayan Dass, who has not been nominated as an accused by the prosecution. Still further he submits that the petitioner is a Chemist, and possess a valid licence (Annexure P-4) under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940. It is his argument that no recovery has been effected from the petitioner, investigation is complete, challan has been presented and the petitioner, who is in custody since 13/8/2019, deserves to be enlarged on bail.