SIKANDER SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE present petition has been filed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short, 'the Cr.P.C') seeking regular bail in case FIR No. 85 dated 20.04.2012, registered under Sections 21, 22 of the NDPS Act, at Police Station City Muktsar, District Sri Muktsar Sahib. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that there is non -compliance of Section 50 of the NDPS Act. The recovery was effected in front of the house of the Tehsildar, however, he was not joined as witness. The learned counsel further contends that from the perusal of recovery memo and search memo, it emerges that firstly, the FIR was registered and thereafter, the recovery was effected. There is no independent witness in the instant case. He cites Baljit Singh Vs. State of Punjab,, 2002 (4) RCR (Criminal) 664; and Manjit Singh Vs. State of Punjab, : 2011 (1) RCR (Criminal) 907.

(2.) ON the other hand, the learned State counsel, on instructions, submits that the quantity recovered is commercial quantity. It was a chance recovery, therefore, the question of compliance of Section 50 of the NDPS does not arise.

(3.) THIS is the third bail petition of the petitioner. Whether there is compliance of Section 50 of the NDPS Act, or the recovery was effected as indicated by the learned counsel for the petitioner and whether the case was registered prior to effecting of recovery, are all questions of fact, which this Court is not inclined to go into in a petition under Section 439 Cr.P.C. The earlier two petitions filed by the petitioner were dismissed. No fresh circumstance is made out. Dismissed.