Amandeep Khan @ Aman vs State Of Punjab

H.S. Madaan, J

Case taken up through video conferencing.

This petition for pre-arrest bail has been filed by petitioner Amandeep Khan @ Aman, an accused in FIR No.136 dated 27.11.2019, for an offence

under Section 22 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short 'the Act'), registered with Police Station City Rampura,

District Bathinda.

Briefly stated the prosecution story is that, on 27.11.2019, a police party from Police Station Rampura, headed by Inspector/SHO Harbans Singh was

present near Petrol Pump at Mehraj road, Rampura Phull, then on the right side of the petrol pump, two persons were spotted, one of them was sitting

on seat of the motorcycle, whereas other was standing nearby; they were having separate polythene bags in their hands and they were exchanging

something from those polythene bags; on seeing the police party, they became nervous and tried to leave that place on the motorcycle, however, the

motorcycle was intercepted and riders were apprehended; they disclosed their names as Bant Singh @ Bunty son of Shiv Lal and Rampal @ Raju;

the polythene bags being carried by them in their hands were searched as per law in the presence of Sh. Jasvir Singh, DSP, Sub Division Mour, who

had been summoned to the spot; from the polythene/plastic bag which Bant Singh @ Bunty was holding in his hand, 90 strips of tablets of Celvidol-100

SR each of 10, batch No.19H-T942 total 900 tablets were recovered and from the bag being carried by Rampal @ Raju, 25 strips of tablets of

Celvidol-100 SR each of 10, batch No.TVD-19375, total 250 tablets were recovered; the recovered contraband was seized and taken into police

possession; the accused were arrested in this case; formal FIR was got was registered; the investigation in the case started, during the course of

which, involvement of the petitioner-accused was also found, since Chhinderpal Singh had named the present petitioner Amandeep Khan @ Aman

being supplier of the contraband, which had been recovered from the possession of accused Bant Singh @ Bunty and Rampal @ Raju.

Apprehending his arrest in this case, petitioner/accused had approached the Courts of Sessions at Bathinda by moving application for grant of pre-

arrest bail. His such application was assigned to Addl. Sessions Judge, Bathinda, who vide order dated 16.12.2019, dismissed the same. Feeling

aggrieved, the petitioner has approached this Court, craving for grant of similar relief, which request is being opposed by the State counsel.

I have heard learned counsel for the parties besides going through the record.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the petitioner is not named in the FIR and no recovery has been effected from him; his name

has cropped up during interrogation of co-accused, which is inadmissible in evidence; there is no incriminating material available against the present

petitioner; he is ready and willing to join the investigation, as such, pre-arrest bail be granted to him.

Whereas, the request is being opposed vehemently by State counsel.

After hearing the rival contentions, I find the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner to be without any merit, coming to the conclusion

that the petition is doomed for failure. As far as the petitioner being not named in the FIR, the petitioner cannot get any advantage of this fact, since

FIR is recorded in case commission of some cognizable offfence is found to be there. It may not contain a detailed version, since only during

investigation the necessary details can be found out. In the instant case, when Bant Singh @ Bunty and Rampal @ Raju were apprehended by the

police party and the contraband was recovered from them, they were apprehended and during investigation one Chhinderpal Singh, had disclosed the

name of the present petitioner as supplier of the contraband. Such type of statement can certainly be taken into consideration for the purpose of

providing lead in the investigation. Statement of a co-accused is admissible under Section 30 of the Indian Evidence Act. The custodial interrogation of

the petitioner is definitely required for complete and effective investigation to find out from where he had procured the contraband which had been

supplied by him to various carriers and had been recovered from Bant Singh @ Bunty and Rampal @ Raju. Names of his customers are also to be

enquired about from him. In case, it is denied to the investigating agency that shall leave many gaps, loopholes and lacuna, adversely affecting the

investigation, which is uncalled for. Even otherwise, keeping in view the rising situation of drug addiction in the region, the custody of the petitioner for

his interrogation is necessary, so that the racket of drug peddling can be busted, in an effort to control the drug peddling, suffering several precious

lives of the young men and women. Under the circumstances, considering the nature and extent of recovery also the petitioner is not entitled to

discretionary equitable relief of pre-arrest bail, which is meant to save the innocent persons from harassment and inconvenience and not to provide

protective umbrella to the criminals enabling them to avoid arrest and interrogation by the investigating agency. The petition is found to be without any

merit and is dismissed accordingly.