BAWA SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present second petition has been filed inter alia praying for grant of regular bail to the petitioner in case FIR No. 106 dtd. 20/6/2023, under Sec. 22 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, registered at Police Station Sadar Khanna, District Khanna.

(2.) At the outset, learned State counsel has filed the status report by way of an affidavit of Mr. Amritpal Singh Bhaati, PPS, Deputy Superintendent of Police, Police District Khanna, District Ludhiana on behalf of the respondent-State in Court today, which is taken on record, subject to all just exceptions. Copy thereof has been handed over to the counsel for the petitioner.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner has raised a glaring issue that the recovery memo was never signed by the accused. The said fact could not be denied by the learned State counsel after verifying from the case file brought by the concerned official. It is very strange that 2400 tablets are alleged to be recovered from the petitioner in a black bag on a busy road at around 5:00 P.M., as per the FIR but neither there is any independent witness nor the recovery memo is signed by the accused. There is not even a recital in the FIR that the accused ever refused to sign the recovery memo. Although the memos, whereby, the accused refused to get search by the patrolling party are duly signed and instead of calling the Magistrate or a Gazetted Officer, the Deputy Superintendent of Police Narcotic Cell, Khanna was requested to come present in whose presence the search was conducted. It is very strange that despite the Deputy Superintendent of Police being present at the time of alleged recovery, still the recovery memos were not signed by the accused and further there is no recital that there was any refusal by the accused.