SUNDER SINGH Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is the second petition for grant of regular bail to the petitioner in FIR No.72 dtd. 18/5/2021, registered under Sec. 20/61/85 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter to be referred as "the NDPS Act"), 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.) Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the first petition for the grant of regular bail was dismissed as withdrawn on 3/2/2022 on the ground that there were some errors in the petition and in the translation of the FIR and thus, the same was dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to file a fresh one after making the requisite corrections in translation of the FIR. It is further stated that in fact, the present is the first petition for the grant of regular bail.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 inside the same, and upon finding the said information to be credible, a police team was formed to conduct the raid. Efforts were made 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, huge quantity of Ganja i.e., 17 quintals 12 kg and 760 grams 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 24/5/2021.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the order dtd. 15/11/2021 passed in CRM-M-46920-2021 titled as 'Sukhwant Singh Vs. State ofHaryana" 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 ofHaryana' and also on the order dtd. 10/1/2021 passed in CRM-M-54123-2021 titled as Sandeep Vs. State ofHaryana' and has submitted that the case of the present petitioner if not better is atparity with the said persons. It is submitted that the petitioner was working as a salesman at the liquor vend of Ajit and his brother Shrichand has been stated to have been working as Munim in the said liquor vend and the challan in the present case has been presented and there are as many as 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. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the petitioner was not named in the FIR and he has nothing to do with the said occurrence, inasmuch as, he is neither the owner of the Canter nor is alleged to be the driver of the Canter. It is further submitted that no recovery has been effected from the petitioner nor the petitioner can be stated to be in conscious possession of any narcotic substances much less, the narcotic substance that has been allegedly recovered. It is further argued that as per the disclosure statement dtd. 26/5/2021 (Annexure P-3) of the petitioner, his brother Shree Chand is working as Munim on the liquor vend of Ajit and on 17/18/5/2021 at about 02:00 AM, a phone call was received from Ajit's phone, by the brother of the petitioner i.e., Shree Chand and he said that Ajit was chasing a Canter on a motorcycle and he suspected that there may be liquor in the vehicle or some narcotic substance and so Shree Chand, brother of the petitioner, asked the petitioner to go alongwith him and so they went in a Bolero vehicle and said Shree Chand made a call to Ajit and when they reached Nawan Gaon, then, Ajit had informed him that they had stopped a Canter on the road before the power house of village Barda, where the petitioner along with Shree Chand reached andsaw that Ajit along with other persons were loading bags of Ganja in the pick-up Bolero of Ajit. Thereafter, Ajit, Shree Chand and the petitioner had sat in their Bolero car and the pick-up vehicle following them and the said pick up vehicle was being driven by Rohit and thereafter, at about 1:00. and 1:30 hours, the petitioner came to the liquor vend in the Bolero vehicle along with three boys and dropped these boys there and Ajit went away in the pick-up in which the Ganja was loaded. It is argued that the said statement is the best case against the petitioner and although, there is no connecting link with respect to the same but even if taken on its face value, then also, it is apparent that the petitioner was neither the person who had supplied the said Ganja nor is the person to whom it had to be supplied to and in fact, while the petitioner and the other co-accused, as per the disclosure statement, were chasing the canter, the impression was that it contained liquor. It is further argued that as per the disclosure statement of one Naveen, it is Kuldeep Singh and Lakhmi who had the knowledge that Ganja was coming from Orissa and it was Ravi Kumar who was driving the said Canter and the said Ganja had been stated to have been purchased from the State of Orissa by Lakhmi and Kuldeep Singh. It is further submitted that there is no allegation against the petitioner that he was in conscious possession of the said Ganja nor any recovery of Ganja has been effected from him and thus, reliance has been placed upon an order passed by Coordinate Bench of this Court dtd. 17/6/2020 in CRM-M-12051-2020 titled Mewa Singh Vs. State of Punjab', and an order of another Coordinate Bench dtd. 16/7/2021 passed in CRM-M-12997-2020 titled as Paint Singh Vs. State ofHaryana' to contend that in such like cases if a person has been proceeded against only on the basis of disclosure statement and no recovery has been effected from the petitioner, then he should be granted the benefit of bail. It is also submitted that the petitioner is not involved in any other case.