SHAMSHER SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By means of this order, Cr. M. Nos. 3847-M and 5020-M of 1986 shall stand disposed of.

(2.) Shamsher Singh accused filed Cr. M. No. 3847/M of 1986 on 19-6-1986 in this Court for bail in a case under S.18 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 for allegedly he was found in possession of one kilogram of opium on 1-6-1986. On 20-6-1986, notice was issued to the Advocate General, Punjab for 17-7-1986. It appears that Shamsher Singh moved another petition on the same day, i.e. on 19-6-1986, before the Sessions Judge, Bhatinda. That Court granted bail to the accused on 21-6-1986 in the sum of Rs. 5,000/- with one surety of the like amount. When the matter before this Court was heard on 17-7-1986, it was brought to its notice that the Sessions Court had granted bail to the petitioner. The State counsel then was asked to get a copy of the said order and on the basis thereof, it was intimated to this Court that an application for cancellation of bail was being moved. It is in those circumstances that Cr. M. No. 5020/M of 1986 was filed and on notice being issued, the accused has put in appearance through counsel.

(3.) There is to be no tangible outcome of these petitions. In view of the small quantity of opium recovered, the accused would have been allowed bail by this Court had he not been granted bail by the Court of Session. What is objectionable is that when he had moved this Court, the Court of Session should have refrained its hands from interfering in the matter when this Court was in seizin of it. However, the escape door in the instant case is that both the petitions for bail here as well as there were filed on 19-6-1986 and the petition there was perhaps filed keeping the Court of Session in the dark about the presentation of the petition here. It would be advisable that the Court of Session should invariably satisfy itself by obtaining a note of the counsel presenting the petition that no such bail application has been moved in the High Court by or on behalf of the petitioner, for one has to be alive to the situation that both the Court of Session as also this Court have concurrent powers in the matter of grant of bail. The second objection is with regard to the small quantity of a bond required because for the offence, heavy monetary penalties amounting to Rs. one lac or even more are compulsorily imposable under the law in the event of conviction. The prospect of such imposition is likely for the accused to turn a fugitive from justice. Therefore, heavier bond in these cases are a compulsive necessity. But that does not mean that some alteration would be caused here for that is left for future guidance of the Courts below.