AMRITPAL SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) CRM-19258-2022 Allowed as prayed for. Annexures P-3 to P-9 are taken on record subject to all just exceptions. Main Case The present petition has been filed under Sec. 439 of Cr.P.C. for grant of regular bail to the petitioner in case FIR No. 66 dtd. 22/4/2021 under Ss. 18, 22, 61 and 85 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 registered at Police Station Sadar Khanna, District Khanna. 3 Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case and has referred to the recovery memo (Annexure P-4), memo of search under Sec. 51 Cr.P.C. (Annexure P-5), documents pertaining to the information given to relatives of the accused with respect to the arrest of the petitioner (Annexure P-6), report of arrest dtd. 22/4/2021 (Annexure P-7) to show that in all the said documents, the FIR no. alongwith the date of registration and also the details of the Sec. of the alleged offences have been mentioned. It is further submitted that although, in the documents Annexure P-5 to Annexure P-7, the date of the FIR has been mentioned as 22/4/2021, in the document Annexure P-8, it has been mentioned as 21/4/2021. It is further submitted that the document Annexure P-8 is with respect to the taking of thumb impression of the petitioner. It is contended that as per the identification certificate dtd. 22/4/2021 (Annexure P-9), it has been stated on the said date itself that the challan is to be presented in the Court against the petitioner although, as per majority of the documents, the FIR had been registered on 22/4/2021 itself. It is further contended that the petitioner is in custody since 23/4/2021 and there are as many as 16 witnesses out of whom, none have been examined and thus, the trial is likely to take time. Reliance has been placed by the learned counsel for the petitioner upon the judgment of Division Bench of this Court in Didar Singh @ Dara Vs. The State of Punjab, reported as 2010(3) RCR (Criminal) 337 in support of his arguments. 4 Learned State counsel, on the other hand, has opposed the present application for regular bail and has placed on record the custody certificate, as per which the custody period as mentioned by the learned counsel for the petitioner stands reiterated. It is further submitted that the date of the recovery memo is mentioned as 22/4/2021 and the FIR has also been registered on the same date and thus, there is no infirmity in the documents prepared. It has been pointed out that the petitioner is involved in one more case under the NDPS Act. 5 Learned counsel for the petitioner has rebutted the said argument and had submitted that as per settled law, it is the facts of the present case which are required to be considered for the purpose of deciding the present bail application. For the said proposition, learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon judgment dtd. 16/1/2012 passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Criminal Appeal No.159 of 2012 titled as Maulana Mohd. Amir Rashadi Vs. State of U.P. and others 2012 (2) SCC 382 reference has been made to the relevant portion of paragraph 6 which is reproduced hereinbelow:-