BALBIR SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is the second petition under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter called as 'Cr.P.C.') for grant of regular bail filed by petitioner Balbir Singh alias Balvir Singh in case FIR No. 96 dated 08.10.2013 under Sections 15 and 25 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter called as 'NDPS Act'), Police Station Hathur, Distt. Ludhiana.

(2.) AS per prosecution allegations, on 07.10.2013, at about 08:30 p.m. during the course of Nakabandi, Inspector Dilbag Singh, SHO Police Station Hathur along with other police employees, got stopped three vehicles i.e. Gypsy bearing registration No. DL -5C -3416, Canter bearing registration No. PB -08BE -8318 and Innova car bearing registration No. PB -10BX -7779 carrying poppy husk. The driver of the Gypsy namely Manpreet Singh and the driver of the Canter namely Charan Singh were apprehended at the spot. Whereas, the present petitioner, who was driving the Innvoa car managed to escape from the spot living the Innova car in the start mode. Total 80 bags of the poppy husk of 20 Kgs. each, were recovered from all the three vehicles. Four bags of 20 Kgs. each i.e. 80 Kgs. poppy husk was recovered from the Innvoa car being driven by the present petitioner. The petitioner was arrested. Since then, he is in custody. His first petition for regular bail was dismissed by this Court vide CRM No. M -31405 of 2014 on 17.09.2014. Hence, this second petition.

(3.) PER contra, learned State counsel pleaded that in this case there is total recovery of 80 bags of 20 Kgs. each, of the poppy husk. Four bags containing 80 Kgs. poppy husk have been recovered from the vehicle being driving by the present petitioner. His name was disclosed at the spot by his co -accused. The recovery effected from the petitioner falls within the definition of commercial quantity. As per the provisions of Section 37 of the NDPS Act, he is not entitled for bail. He further contended that moreover, this is the second petition by the petitioner for grant of regular bail and, there is no change of circumstance. So, the petitioner does not deserve the concession of bail.