ROSHAN KUMAR Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioners Roshan Kumar and Lalit @ Lalli have approached this Court by way of filing the present petition under Sec. 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for grant of regular bail to them in case FIR No.471 dtd. 7/9/2017 under Ss. 20, 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short - 'NDPS Act') registered at Police Station Thanesar Sadar, Distt. Kurukshetra.

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners have falsely been implicated in the case, whereas they were not involved. The challan has been presented and, thereafter, charges have also been framed. As per the chemical examiner report, the description of the alleged contraband on the basis of physical appearance has been shown to be greenish brown vegetative material having flowering/fruiting top and seeds (1 and 2). As per the chemical examiner report, it was found to be of ganja. Learned counsel also submits that as per Sec. 2(iii) (b) of the NDPS Act it does not cover under the definition of ganja as ganja is having only the flowering and fruitful tops excluding the seeds and leaves. The FIR was registered on the basis of secret information. As per the story of the prosecution, petitioner No.1 along with co-accused Vishavjeet was sitting on one bag from which total 45 kilograms of ganja was recovered whereas 35 kilograms ganja was recovered from petitioner No.2. Co-accused Lalit alias Lalli was also apprehended with 35 kilograms ganja from the other bag. Learned counsel also submits that it is not possible to keep 45 and 35 kilograms ganja in a bag. Four persons have been shown to be arrested by the police as two persons were sitting on each bag. Learned counsel further submits that the petitioners are in custody since 7/9/2017 and no recovery was effected from them. Learned counsel also submits that there is non- compliance of mandatory provisions of the NDPS Act and the Rules. Learned counsel further submits that the case of the petitioners is partly covered by judgment of this Court in case titled as Jangir Singh Vs. State of Punjab, CRM-M No.266 of 2018 decided on 13/7/2018.

(3.) Learned State counsel has not disputed the period of custody undergone by the petitioners and also the ratio of judgment as cited by learned counsel for the petitioners. Heard arguments of learned counsel for the petitioners as well as learned State counsel. I have also perused the contents of the FIR and other documents on the file.