JUGRAJ SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This order shall dispose of CRM-M-24951-2014 (Jugraj Singh v. State of Punjab) and CRM-M-29026-2014 (Gagandeep Singh @ Robin v. State of Punjab) since both the petitions have been filed for grant of regular bail to the petitioner for having committed the offences punishable under Sections 18, 28 and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for brevity, 'the NDPS Act'), in a case arising out of FIR No. 145, dated 19.7.2012, registered at Police Station, Division No. 5, Civil Lines, Ludhiana.

(2.) Mr. Gurbir Singh Toor and Mr. Kamaljeet Singh Sidhu, learned counsel for the petitioners submit that as per the prosecution version 3 Kgs. of opium was recovered on 19.7.2012 at about 2:30 p.m., from an abandoned Palio car, bearing Registration No. PB-10-CK-8070, which was stationed outside the District Courts Complex, Ludhiana. Vipan Kumar was the registered owner of the said car and Power of Attorney of Harbhajan Singh, a Non Resident Indian residing in Canada. In the investigation conducted by the police, Harbhajan Singh and Vipan Kumar were associated. On 5.3.2014, both of them disclosed to the police that Harbhajan Singh had a deep rooted enmity with his real brother Harcharan Singh and at his (Harcharan Singh) instance Jugraj Singh and Gagandeep Singh @ Robin (petitioners) in connivance with their co-accused, procured 3 Kgs. of opium and placed it in the car belonging to Vipan Kumar. Learned counsel further submit that after about one year and eight months of the recovery of the opium, without any basis Harbhajan Singh and Vipan Kumar disclosed to the police that the petitioners had planted the opium in the car belonging to Vipan Kumar. In fact, their version to the police was hearsay. No one had seen the petitioners placing the opium in the car of Vipan Kumar. They further submit that the petitioners were arrested on 11.3.2014 and thereafter police remand was granted to the police, but the police failed to know the source from where the petitioners received 3 Kgs. of opium. They further submit that even if the case of the prosecution is accepted in its entirety with regard to procurement of 2Kgs. of opium by Jugraj Singh and 1 Kg. by Gagandeep Singh @ Robin, then also it will be a case of non-commercial quantity so far as the petitioners are individually concerned. They further submit that there is no material with the police to say that there was inter se relation between Jugraj Singh and Gagandeep Singh @ Robin. It has also been argued by the learned counsel for the petitioners that Jugraj Singh and Gagandeep Singh @ Robin are neither required nor involved in any other case. The investigation qua the petitioners is already complete and the charge-sheet (report under Section 173, Cr.P.C.) has already been submitted before the learned Court below and even the charges have been framed, therefore, their further incarceration in the present case is not of worth.

(3.) Learned counsel for the State, assisted by Mr. Harkanwar Jeet Singh, learned counsel for Vipan Kumar - registered owner of the car from which the alleged opium was recovered, submits that the petitioners along with their coaccused had a motive to falsely implicate Vipan Kumar and with an evil design they (petitioners) procured the commercial quantity of opium and planted the same in the car belonging to Vipan Kumar.