CHHOTU RAM Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for petitioner, learned counsel for the Union of India and perused the relevant documents placed before me.

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the accused petitioner Chhotu Ram has been implicated in this case only on the basis of the statement of Balwinder Singh who happens to be the owner and driver of the truck allegedly carrying 6,040 kg of poppy straws along with his conductor Sukhdev. He further submits that Balwinder Singh has been examined twice. Firstly, before his arrest wherein he did not name the accused petitioner and secondly when he was arrested, he named the accused petitioner who is one of the big operator in the trade operating in the State of Haryana but did not connect him with the present transaction. The learned counsel also tpok this Court through the statement of Sudhir Bishnoi and the accused petitioner Chhotu Ram and argued that in the statement of Sudhir Bishnoi as well as that of Chhotu Ram in his first statement, no involvement of the accused petitioner was mentioned. Learned counsel placed reliance in Fraincis Stanly @ Stalin v. Intelligence Officer, Narcotic Control Bureau, Thiruvananthapuram and Lachhu @ Laxmi Narain v. Union of India on the point of application under Section 67 of the NDPS Act.

(3.) Learned counsel for Narcotic Control Bureau opposed the bail application and has confined his argument mainly on the ground that Balwinder Singh when he examined after arrest, mentioned involvement of the accused petitioner.