JEET SINGH @ JEETI Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition has been filed by the petitioner under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (in short 'the Code') seeking bail in pending trial in case bearing FIR No. 9, dated 22-1-1995, Police Station Lambi, under Section 15 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (in short 'the Act'). As per allegations made in the FIR on 22-1-1995, the petitioner was apprehended by the Police and at that time he was carrying a bag containing poppy husk which on weighment was found to be 10 Kgs.

(2.) MR . Paramjit Singh, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that the petitioner was arrested on 22-1-1995 and he was produced before the Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Gidderbaha on 23-1-1995, who granted remand upto 6th February, 1995. The remand was further extended till 20th February, 1995, by the same learned Magis­trate. The learned Counsel submitted that under Clause (b) of sub-section (1) of Section 36-A of the Act, the learned Judicial Magistrate could authorise the detention of the petitioner for the period not exceeding 15 days. He, therefore, contended that since in the present case, detention of the petitioner was authorised by the Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class for more than 15 days, there was clear violation of the mandatory provisions of the Act. He further submitted that even as per the allegations, the alleged recovery from the petitioner is only 10 Kgs. of poppy husk. He, therefore, contended that the petitioner should be released on bail. In support of his contention he placed reliance on judgment of this Court in Bhupinder Singh v. State of Haryana, 1994 (2) Recent Crl. Reports 302.

(3.) THE fact regarding authorising detention of the petitioner beyond 15 days be the Judicial Magitrate 1st Class has not bean controverted by the learned Counsel for the State. In Criminal Misc. No. 9322-M of 1993, Janta Singh v. State of Punjab, the matter with regard to the interpretation of Clause (b) of sub-section (1) of Section 36-A of the Act has been referred by the learned Single Bench of this Court to Larger Bench vide order dated 17th August, 1993. Thereafter, the matter was heard by the Division Bench of this Court on 30-11-1993 and the Division Bench directed that the matter be place before Hon'ble Chief Justice for Constitution of the Full Bench to resolve the controversy. Keeping in view the facts stated above and also the alleged recovery made from the petitioner, I am of the opinion, that it is a fit case for allowing bail. Accordingly, I directed that the petitioner be released on bail on his furnishing bail bond in the sum of Rs. 25,000 with one surety of the like amount to the stisfaction of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Faridkot. Appeal allowed.