LAKHVIR SINGH AND ORS. Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This order shall dispose of CRM-M-10324-2015 (Lakhvir Singh alias Lakhi vs State of Punjab) and CRM-M-22031- 2015 (Harcharan Singh @ Gurcharan Singh vs State of Punjab), since both the petitions have been filed for grant of regular bail to the petitioners 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 19.07.2012, registered at Police Station, Division No.5, Civil Lines Ludhiana.

(2.) Ms.Jigyasa Tanwar, learned proxy counsel for the petitioner, Lakhvir Singh @ Lakhi and Mr.G.B.S.Dhillon, learned counsel for the petitioner, Harcharan Singh @ Gurcharan Singh, submit that as per prosecution version, 3 kilograms of opium were recovered on 19.07.2012 at about 2.30 p.m., from an abandoned Palio make 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.

(3.) He was also the Power of Attorney/ Parokar of Harbhajan Singh, a Non Resident Indian (NRI) residing in Canada. In the investigation conducted by the police, Harbhajan Singh and Vipan Kumar were associated. On 05.03.2014, both of them disclosed to the police that Harbhajan Singh had a deep rooted enmity with his real brother Harcharan Singh (petitioner) and at his (Harcharan Singh) instance, Jugraj Singh and Gagandeep Singh @ Robin in connivance with their co-accused, procured 3 kilograms 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 Jugraj Singh and Gagandeep Singh @ Robin, the co-accused of 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 co-accused of the petitioners placing the opium in the car of Vipan Kumar. They further submit that the petitioners were arrested on 17.09.2014 and 05.08.2014, respectively, and thereafter police remand was granted to the police, but the police failed to know the source from where the co-accused of the petitioners had received 3 kilograms of opium. They further submit that even if the case of the prosecution is accepted in its entirety, then also the essential ingredients of the offences for which the petitioners have been booked are not attracted. After about 18 months of the recovery of the alleged opium from the Palio make car, the names of the petitioners figured on the police file and that too on the basis of the disclosure statements of their co-accused. They further submit that except the disclosure statements of the co-accused of the petitioners, the confession of the petitioners before the police and statement of Vipan Kumar under Section 161, Cr.P.C., which is a hearsay statement, there is no other legal material to connect the petitioners with the said offences. They further submit that after completion of the investigation, charge-sheet (report under Section 173, Cr.P.C.) was filed in the month of May, 2014, and thereafter the charges were framed, but the prosecution has not been able to lead its entire evidence. They further submit that the petitioners are neither required nor involved in any other case arising out of the NDPS Act.