BALJINDER SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner-accused seeks bail in case bearing FIR No. 205 dated 27.5.2001 registered under Section 15 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') with Police Station, Patran, District Patiala.

(2.) ON 27.5.2001 at 10.00 p.m. ASI Kuljit Singh of Police Station, Patran along H.C. Lal Chand, Constable Hardeep Singh, Constable Balwinder Singh, Constable Suresh Kumar, Midda Ram son of Kusala Ram, Village Banas, Police Station Gagga were present near Gaushala Patran on Patra - Jakhal road in connection with FIR No. 204 dated 26.5.2001 registered under Sections 279, 337, 338 and 427 of the Indian Penal Code with Police Station, Patran. When the Investigating Officer started searching ambassador car No. PB-11E-2421 involved in the accident, he found Baljinder Singh, petitioner-accused sitting on driver's seat of the car in drunken state. On further enquiry, the petitioner-accused had informed him that his companion Jaswant Singh had run away from the spot after the accident. Thereafter search of the car was conducted and three bags containing poppy husk were found in rear dicky. Presence of Ashwani Kumar, Deputy Superintendent of Police was secured and the bags lying in rear dicky of the car were searched. Each bag was found containing 30 kgs. of poppy husk. After sealing the sample taken out of it and the bags in question the recovery proceedings were completed at the spot. After completion of investigation, the case has been filed in Court.

(3.) OPPOSING the submissions made, it has been strenuously urged by the State counsel that the Investigating Officer had no prior information that the car in question, which had met with an accident, would be found containing poppy husk and if he had taken the recourse to obtain warrants of the petitioner- accused, the accused would have managed to escape because his companion had already slipped away from the spot soon after the accident. It was also urged by him that the case of the petitioner is fully within the ambit of provisions of Section 37 of the Act.