SUNIL SINGH ROSHAN LAL Vs. UT OF J&K

JUDGEMENT

(1.) As per the prosecution case, on 05.06.2020 at about 1.20 PM, a police party of Police Station, Samba, while on Naka checking at Plah Morh National Highway, Samba, spotted a person who was carrying a polythene bag. On seeing the police party, the said person tried to run away from the spot. The person in question was nabbed by the police and upon search of the polythene bag that was being carried by him, 20 pieces of charas like substance weighing 300/350 grams packed in maize cover were recovered from his possession. The said person disclosed his identity as Roshan Lal, one of the petitioners herein. The police registered FIR No.145/2020 for offence under Section 8/20 NDPS Act at P/S Samba. The recovered substance (charas) weighing 350 grams including the maize cover was seized and accused/petitioner Roshan Lal was subjected to interrogation. It is the further case of the prosecution that during interrogation, accused/petitioner Roshan Lal disclosed that he had purchased the recovered charas from one Sunil Singh, the other petitioner herein, who was also arrested and subjected to interrogation. On the basis of disclosure of accused/petitioner Sunil Singh, 150 grams of charas packed in maize cover and 4.50 kgs of Poppy Straw were recovered. According to the prosecution case, after investigation of the case, offences under Section 8/15/29 of NDPS Act stand established against both the petitioners/accused who are in police/judicial custody since 05.06.2020. Challan against the petitioners has already been filed before the Court of Principal Sessions Judge, Samba.

(2.) It appears that the petitioners had filed an application for grant of bail in their favour in the aforesaid FIR before the Court of Principal Sessions Judge, Samba, and the same was rejected by the Court vide order dated 14.07.2020. Being aggrieved of the said order, the petitioners have filed the instant petitions before this Court for grant of bail in their favour on the grounds that the investigation in the case is complete and nothing is to be recovered from the petitioners, as such, there is no reason to keep the petitioners behind the bars; that on account of outbreak of pandemic COVID-19 and due to over crowding of jails, the petitioners deserve to be enlarged on bail so as to prevent a situation whereby they would be exposed to infection; that the learned trial court while rejecting the bail petition of the petitioners has not properly appreciated the legal position attending the issue of grant of bail inasmuch as the rule is bail not jail which in other words means that grant of bail is a rule and its refusal an exception; that the observations of the learned trial court regarding apprehension of the petitioners tampering with the prosecution evidence is without any basis and that in case bail is granted in favour of the petitioners, they are ready to abide by all terms and conditions that may be imposed by the Court.

(3.) The respondents have resisted the bail petitions by filing objections thereto. In their objections, respondents have contended that the petitioners are involved in non-bailable offences under NDPS Act as intermediate quantity of contraband/narcotics has been seized from them which act of the petitioners is punishable with imprisonment for a term extending to 10 years and payment of fine up to Rs.1.00 lac, thus the petitioners do not deserve the concession of bail; that the order rejecting the bail petition of the petitioners passed by the learned trial court is based on cogent and sound reasons and that the petitioners have committed a heinous crime, inasmuch as their acts put the lives of young people and their families at risk