TARSEM KUMAR Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Case is being taken up for hearing through Video Conferencing due to Covid-19 pandemic.

(2.) Prayer in the petition under Sec. 439 Cr.P.C. is for grant of regular bail to the petitioner during the pendency of trial in case FIR No.231 dtd. 15/11/2020 registered under Ss. 15(c)/18(b), Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 at Police Station Sangat, District Bathinda.

(3.) Learned counsel contends that the petitioner has been involved in the instant case on account of his being owner of the truck on the basis of disclosure statement of co accused from whom 300 kg of poppy husk and 1.5 Kg opium was recovered and who implicated the petitioner by stating that he had gone to Rajasthan on the asking of the petitioner on 14/11/2020 at the address as given by the petitioner and that poppy husk was partially stacked at the house of the petitioner. Learned Counsel contends that implication on the basis of disclosure statement alone is legally unsustainable, and there was no other material to connect the petitioner with the commission of the offence. Moreover, no recovery was made from the petitioner nor was the petitioner involved in any other case. Learned counsel has referred to the decision of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Bhola Singh Versus State of Punjab 2011(11) SCC 653 to contend that mere ownership of truck by the accused without there being any other evidence to connect the accused with the commission of the offence, nor there being any evidence to indicate that the accused had knowingly permitted the use of his vehicle for any improper purpose, a sine qua non for the applicability of Sec. 25 of the Act, Sec. 35 of the Act could also not be attracted in the absence of initial burden being discharged that the accused had knowledge that his vehicle was being used for transporting narcotic drugs. Learned Counsel contends that it is only if the initial burden is discharged that the accused had knowledge that his vehicle was being used for transporting narcotics that the presumption under Sec. 35 of the Act would arise.