Amandeep Singh vs State Of Punjab

H.S. Madaan, J

Case taken up through video conferencing.

This petition for regular bail has been filed by petitioner - Amandeep Singh, aged about 23 years - an accused in FIR No.20 dated 5.2.2020 for the offence under Section 21 of NDPS Act, registered with Police Station Bhogpur, District Jalandhar.

Briefly stated, the facts of the case as per prosecution story are that on 5.2.2020, a police party from Police Station Bhogpur while on patrol duty and being present at little distance from Ladoa Government Girls High School near bridge apprehended petitioner/accused on the basis of suspicion and while conducting his search as per rules, the polythene envelope being carried by him was found to contain 260 gms. of heroin. It was taken into police possession. Accused was arrested in this case. Formal FIR in the matter was registered. After registration of the FIR, investigation in the case started. The petitioner had filed application for regular bail in the Court of Sessions, which was declined by learned Judge, Special Court, Jalandhar (Duty) vide order dated 27.4.2020, as such, he has approached this Court with the same request.

Notice of the petition was given to respondent - State and counsel representing the State has put in appearance. He opposes the request for regular bail.

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

Admittedly, the contraband said to have been recovered from the possession of petitioner amounts to commercial quantity attracting rigor of Section 37 of the Act. Section 37 reads as under:

Offences to be cognizable and non-bailable.-(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974),-

(a) every offence punishable under this Act shall be cognizable;

(b) no person accused of an offence punishable for 3 [offences under section 19 or section 24 or section 27A and also for offences involving commercial quantity] shall be released on bail or on his own bond unless-

(i) the Public Prosecutor has been given an opportunity to oppose the application for such release, and

(ii) where the Public Prosecutor opposes the application, the court is satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for believing that he is not guilty of such offence and that he is not likely to commit any offence while on bail.

(iii)(2) The limitations on granting of bail specified in clause (b) of sub-section (1) are in addition to the limitations under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974) or any other law for the time being in force on granting of bail.

There is nothing to record satisfaction that there are reasonable ground for believing that petitioner is not guilty of that offence or that he has not committed any offence.

Though learned counsel for the petitioner has raised certain contentions to wit that no independent witness was joined at the time of alleged search and seizure and as a matter of fact, petitioner along with Ved Parkash and one Ajaypal Singh were picked up from their houses and 260 gms. heroin from each was planted upon them. FIR No.31 dated 5.2.2020 for the offence under Section 21 of NDPS Act was registered with Police Station Phillaur, District Jalandhar against accused Ajaypal Singh, FIR No.23 dated 5.2.2020 under Section 21 of NDPS Act was registered at Police Station Kartarpur, Jalandhar against accused Ved Parkash and the present FIR i.e. FIR No.20 dated 5.2.2020 for the offence under Section 21 of NDPS Act was registered at Police Station Bhogpur, District Jalandhar against the present petitioner, the prosecution story is unconvincing.

But these contentions may be relevant and helpful to the petitioner during the trial for the purpose of determining his guilt but not at this stage when the question involved is whether he deserves to be granted regular bail or not. The factors which are to be considered to determine whether the petitioner is entitled to grant of bail are different from the factors which are to be kept in mind while determining guilt of an accused during trial. Keeping in view the fact that petitioner was found in possession of substantial contraband amounting to commercial quantity in view of bar of Section 37 and apprehension expressed by learned State counsel that in case he is released on bail, he may abscond or try to tamper with the prosecution evidence or take to criminal activities again, which cannot be brushed aside lightly, the petitioner accused is not entitled to the concession of regular bail.

Therefore, finding no merit in the petition, the same stands dismissed.