SUKHCHAIN SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is the first petition under Sec. 439 Cr.P.C. for grant of regular bail to the petitioner in FIR no.220 dtd. 1/11/2021 registered under Ss. 15 and 25 of the NDPS Act at Police Station Dharamkot, District Moga.

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner has been in custody since 25/1/2023 and the investigation is complete and the challan has already been presented and there are 25 witnesses, out of which, only 3 witnesses have been examined and thus, the trial is likely to take time. It is further submitted that the petitioner was not named in the FIR which was registered on 1/11/2021 and although 12 persons were specifically named and in the FIR it was also mentioned that the secret informer had taken the names of the said 12 persons, who were stated to be involved in buying and selling of poppy husk. It is argued that there was no allegation levelled against the present petitioner in the same and that as per the short reply dtd. 9/1/2024 filed by way of affidavit of Ravinder Singh, PPS, Deputy Superintendent of Police, Dharamkot, District Moga on behalf of the State, recovery of poppy husk has been effected from two vehicles i.e., one truck no.HR-64-6149 and one Xylo car without number plate and the present petitioner is not the owner of either of the two vehicles nor was driving the same. It is submitted that in paragraph 9 of the said affidavit, it has been stated that one Angrej Singh son of Gurbux Singh, resident of Hanuman Chowk, Ratia, was the registered owner of truck no.HR-64-6149 and he had sold the said truck to Parkash Singh son of Gurcharan Singh, resident of Malout and as per investigation, the Xylo car was in the ownership of Randhir Singh son of Mohinder Singh, resident of Adarsh Nagar, Phagwara. It is further submitted that no recovery has been effected from the present petitioner and the petitioner is not involved in any other case under the NDPS Act. It is argued that the petitioner was implicated in the present case on 25/4/2022, after a delay of more than 5 months, solely on the ground that two vehicles were parked on the land of a godown, which was owned by the present petitioner. It is stated that as per paragraph 5 of the affidavit of Ravinder Singh filed on behalf of the State, it has been recorded that as per the disclosure statement of Pippal Singh it is he, who had purchased the property under neath the godown from one Karam Chand resident of Dharamkot @ Rs.85,000.00 per marla in the name of the petitioner Sukhchain Singh, who was his close relative and after that Pippal Singh had constructed a godown there. It is further stated that the recovery is not from the godown but from the vehicles which were parked in the land where the godown is situated and even as per the case of the prosecution, it is not the petitioner who had purchased the same by paying consideration and it is rather co-accused Pippal Singh, who had purchased the same. In such a situation, it is submitted that it cannot be stated that the petitioner was in conscious possession of the poppy husk. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon a judgment of a Coordinate Bench of this Court in CRM-M-16150-2021 dtd. 19/7/2021 titled as 'Balwinder Singh Vs. State of Punjab' to contend that in such a situation, it is matter of debate as to whether the petitioner could be stated to be in conscious possession of the poppy husk in question or not. It is argued that 8 persons named in the FIR have been granted anticipatory bail by the Coordinate Bench including Karamjeet Singh @ Karamjit Singh in CRM-M-510482021 decided on 22/3/2022, Gurjinder Singh @ Motu in CRM-M-518002021 decided on 22/3/2022, Inderjit Singh in CRM-M-52014-2021 decided on 22/3/2022, Lakhwinder Singh @ Kaku in CRM-M-52042-2021 decided on 22/3/2022, Arasal Singh @ Rasal Singh @ Nanu in CRM-M-53114-2021 decided on 22/3/2022 and Jagraj Singh in CRM-M-503832021 decided on 22/3/2022.

(3.) Learned State counsel, on the other hand, has opposed the present petition for regular bail and has submitted that the recovery in the present case is of commercial quantity and thus, bar under Sec. 37 of the NDPS Act would apply in the present case. It is further submitted that although it has been stated in paragraph 5 of the affidavit that it is Pippal Singh, who had purchased the property under neath the godown from one Karam Chand resident of Dharamkot @ Rs.85,000.00 but the same was in the name of the petitioner and thus, the involvement of the petitioner is also prima facie established. It is argued that poppy husk has been recovered from the vehicles, which were parked in the land owned by the petitioner and thus, the petitioner does not deserve the concession of regular bail.