BELI RAM Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Prayer in this petition, filed under Sec. 439 Cr.P.C., is for grant of regular bail to the petitioner in case FIR No.51 dtd. 4/8/2021, under Ss. 8, 20, 28, 29, 60 and 61 of the NDPS Act, 1985, registered at Police Station NCB, Chandigarh.

(2.) The case in question was registered on the statement of Intelligence Officer of the Narcotics Control Bureau (NCB), Chandigarh stating that secret information was received that two persons namely Sher Singh and Beli Ram (petitioner) son of Kalu Ram aged about 25 years, both residents of Kullu (Himachal Pradesh) were bringing Charas from Kullu by concealing it in cartons of apples and pears (nashpati) in a Bolero pick-up bearing number HP-34-D-2598 and they would deliver this Charas to a person namely Happy in Patiala (Punjab) on 4/8/2021. Further, they would pass Ghanauli Chowk between 10:30 AM to 11:30 AM on 4/8/2021. Smt. Neena Kakkar ' Superintendent of NCB, Chandigarh and a Gazetted Officer constituted a team of NCB officers/officials headed by Ajit Pal Singh, Intelligence Officer (IO). The said team reached at the disclosed place in two departmental vehicles. The IO introduced himself and NCB team to Constable Lakhwinder Singh and Constable Gurpreet Singh, present at Police Check Post and told them about secret information available with them and requested them to remain present as witnesses. They both joined NCB team. At about 11:00 AM, one Bolero pick-up was found coming with registration number HP-34-D-2598. It was signalled to stop and driver accordingly stopped the vehicle. Two persons were found travelling in the said vehicle. IO Ajit Pal Singh introduced himself and NCB team to the said persons. On asking, the driver told his name as Sher Singh son of Jaylu Ram, resident of Kullu (HP) and the other person told his name as Beli Ram son of Kalu Ram, resident of Kullu (HP). The said persons were told about the secret information available with them and it was asked to them whether they were bringing any intoxicated substance or Charas in their vehicle in clandestine manner. Both the said persons told that they were having 5.5 kg of Charas contained in five packets, concealed in cardboard boxes of apples and pears in their Bolero pick-up bearing number HP-34-D-2598. Both the above-said persons unloaded the cardboard boxes one by one. They brought out five packets of Charas from their vehicle and produced the same before IO Ajit Pal Singh by telling that it was the Charas consignment brought from Kullu and they were going to deliver the same to one Happy at Patiala. A small quantity of substance, obtained from all the packets, were tested with Drug Detection Kit brought by NCB team. On testing, the same showed positive for Charas. Charas in four packets was taken into possession in a parcel which was marked as LOT-A and charas from another packet was taken into possession in a separate bag and was marked as LOT-B, as per rules. Both the accused were issued notice under Sec. 67 of the NDPS Act and were also made to understand the legal provisions of Sec. 67 of the NDPS Act. The petitioner made voluntary statement and disclosed that on the offer of co-accused Sher Singh to transport Charas, he had agreed and brought his vehicle in which the contraband and fruits were loaded. Co-accused Sher Singh made statement that petitioner Beli Ram was his cousin brother and he was aware about the consignment of seized Charas. He was driving the vehicle and Sher Singh had promised him to pay Rs.20,000.00 for that consignment.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the petitioner is in custody since 4/8/2021 i.e. for the last 01 year and 10 months. He is not involved in any other case. The entire material of apple and pears, in which contraband was concealed, belonged to co-accused Sher Singh. The petitioner was concerned only with the transportation charges. It is further argued that there was no compliance of Sec. 50 of the NDPS Act. The petitioner is having three children i.e. one daughter aged 10 years and two sons aged 08 and 06 years. There is no other member in the family to provide them basic necessities and if the petitioner is ultimately acquitted, then his days spent in prison would not be restored.