LAWS(P&H)-2015-9-397

GURDEV SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

Decided On September 29, 2015
GURDEV SINGH Appellant
V/S
STATE OF PUNJAB Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Prayer in this petition is for grant of regular bail to the petitioner in case FIR No. 94 dated 22.8.2014 under Sec. 15 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short, the NDPS Act) registered at Police Station Longowal, District Sangrur. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that allegation against the petitioner and his co -accused is for possession of 80 Kgs. of poppy husk in four different bags and, thereafter, on the disclosure statement of the petitioner, 1.5 Kgs. opium was recovered from the vehicle owned by the petitioner. He further submits that the petitioner is in custody since 22.8.2014 and there is no other case under the NDPS Act against him. He further submits that the petitioner cannot be said to be in conscious possession of total contraband. In support of his contentions, learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon four judgments of this Court passed in CRM -M -25556 -2010 decided on 25.10.2010 titled as Bheem Singh @ Bheema v/s. State of Punjab, CRM -M -36696 -2013 decided on 27.11.2013 titled as Jagtar Singh v/s. State of Punjab; CRM -M -11592 -2014 decided on 11.4.2014 titled as Avtar Singh @ Malhotra v/s. State of Punjab and CRM -M -15542 -2014 decided on 19.5.2014 titled as Kuldeep Singh @ Bheecha v/s. State of Punjab.

(2.) On the other hand, learned counsel for the State, on instructions from HC Ranjit Singh, submits that though the quantity of 1.5 Kgs. falls within the non -commercial quantity, however, the possession of 80 Kgs. poppy husk is commercial. He further submits that though there is no case against the petitioner under the NDPS Act, but there are two other cases pending against him under the Indian Penal Code.

(3.) Admittedly, the petitioner is in custody since 20.8.2014 and as against the cited total 17 prosecution witnesses, only 4 witnesses have been examined, the trial will take sufficient long time. As the petitioner is not involved in any other case under the NDPS Act, he is unlikely to commit any such offence in future.