SIMRATPAL SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition has been filed under Section 439 Cr.P.C for grant of regular bail to the petitioner, in case FIR No. 4 dated 14.08.2013 registered under Sections 21, 25 and 29 of the NDPS Act and also under Sections 307, 411, 414, 420, 467, 468 and 471 IPC at Police Station State Special Operation Cell, Amritsar.

(2.) PETITIONER -Simratpal Singh was arrested in the said FIR on 14.08.2013. Along with petitioner, his co -accused, namely, Hargobind Singh and Surjit Singh were also arrested in case FIR No. 42 dated 15.08.2013 registered under Sections 21, 25, 29, 61, 85 of NDPS Act at Police Station Taragarh (Pathankot). The said FIR was registered on the basis of secret information, stating therein that accused Hargobind Singh and Surjit Singh @ Baba are involved in smuggling of heroin and they are going to deliver a consignment to their associate, namely, Simratpal Singh (the present petitioner) and in case, the raid is conducted, a huge quantity of heroin could be recovered from them. Accordingly, a raiding party was constituted. However, co -accused of the petitioner fled away from the spot and the petitioner was arrested and from his car, seven packets of heroin were recovered. The petitioner has been shown to have been arrested from the spot on 14.08.2013 at about 8.00/8.30 p.m, whereas, his co -accused, namely, Hargobind Singh and Surjit Singh @ Baba has been shown to have been arrested at 7.30 p.m at Pathankot in connection with FIR No. 42 dated 15.08.2013. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that co -accused of the petitioner Hargobind Singh and Surjit Singh @ Baba were granted bail, in case FIR No. 4 dated 14.08.2013 by this Court on 14.05.2014 and 30.05.2014, respectively under Section 167(2) of the Cr.P.C. The bail application filed by the petitioner was dismissed only on the ground that no such application was moved by him under Section 167 (2) Cr.P.C and he was not entitled for bail as per aforesaid provisions of Cr.P.C. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the petitioner is also at par with his co -accused, who have already been granted the benefit of Section 167(2) of the Code and is entitled for bail.

(3.) LEARNED State counsel submits that since no bail application was moved by the petitioner whereas his co -accused have filed a petition, accordingly, they were released on bail in view of provisions of Section 167 (2) Cr.P.C.