SANDEEP Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Prayer in the present petition is for grant of regular bail to the petitioner in FIR No.72 dtd. 18/5/2021 registered under Sec. 20 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter to be referred as "the Act of 1985"), Sec. 25 of the Arms Act, 1959 and Ss. 395, 427, 216 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 at Police Station Satnali, District Mahendergarh (District Narnaul).

(2.) Brief case of the prosecution is that secret information had been received to the effect that one Canter had been parked near Village Barda and since, there was suspicion that there were some intoxicant substances in the same, and finding the said information to be credible, a police team was formed to conduct the raid. Efforts weremade to join witnesses from the public but people showed their inability to do so and when the police party reached near the Canter, no person was found present near it and thereafter, a notice under Sec. 42 of the Act of 1985 was prepared and was forwarded to the Duty Magistrate. The Duty Magistrate reached the spot and in his presence, the search of the Canter was conducted. During the search, 17 quintals 12 kg and 760 grams of huge quantity of ganja was recovered from the said Canter. During the search of cabin of the Canter, one Driving Licence issued in the name of Ravi Kumar son of Om Parkash and one Aadhaar Card also in the name of Ravi Kumar, were recovered and the FIR was registered against unidentified persons. Thereafter, co-accused Ajit, Rohit and Kuldeep were arrested. The present petitioner was also arrested on 23/5/2021.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner has further relied upon the order dtd. 15/11/2021 passed in CRM-M-46920-2021 titled as "Sukhwant Singh Vs. State of Haryana" vide which the co-accused Sukhwant Singh has been granted regular bail and further reliance has been placed upon the order dtd. 7/12/2021 passed in CRM-M-50518-2021 titled as Naveen Vs. State of Haryana and has submitted that the case of the present petitioner if not better is at parity with the said persons. It is submitted that the petitioner is not involved in any other case and he is only an employee of Ajit at the liquor vend of Ajit and the petitioner has been in custody since 23/5/2021 and the challan in the present case has been presented and there are as manyas 28 witnesses out of which only one has been examined and thus, the conclusion of trial is likely to take long time, moreso, in view of the COVID-19 pandemic.