High CourtsSingle Bench

Babbar Singh vs State of Punjab

Punjab And Haryana At Chandigarh · Decided on 22 March 2001 · Citation: (2001) 2 RCR(Criminal) 774

HON’BLE JUDGES
Amar Dutt, J
CASE NUMBER
Criminal Miscellaneous No. 37633-M of 2000

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

7 paragraphs · 369 words

Amar Dutt, J.—Petitioner-Babbar Singh, from whom 320 grams of opium is alleged to have been recovered by the police on 9.6.2000, is seeking bail primarily on the ground that the investigation of the case was conducted by the same officer, who had got recorded the F.I.R. and on this ground to legality of the investigation becomes questionable and entitles the petitioner to be released on bail.

2.

Having given'' my thoughtful consideration to the aforesaid submission, i find myself unable to accept the same.

3.

For advancing the submission, learned counsel relied upon the view taken by this Court in Risala v. State of Haiyana 1996(2) RCR 707 in which a Single Judge of this Court had, after relying upon the observations contained in Darshan Kumar v. State of Rajasthan 1991 CriLJ 737and Administrator, Municipal Committee, Charkhi Dadri and another Vs. Ramji Lal Bagla and others, accepted the submission that the validity ofthe investigation by an officer, who had lodged the F.I.R. regarding the offence, would be debatable.

4.

Learned counsel for the State, however, relies upon two judgments reported as Piara v. State of Punjab 1995(3) RCR 158 and Kashmir Singh v. State of Haryana 1997(4) RCR 653 in which while taking into consideration the observations made in the aforesaid cases, this Court had come to the concision that no fault could be found with such investigation in view of the provisions of Section 67(c) of the NDPS, Act, which specifically enables such an officer to record statements and conclude the investigations. To the same effect is the view taken in Jai Singh v. State of Haryana, 1996(1) Crimes 170.

5.

In view of this, there is no merit in the legal submissions on the basis of which bail is being sought in the present case. Even otherwise, as the petitioner was found in possession of 320 kilograms (grams ?) of opium and there being no circumstances available on the record on the basis of which a satisfaction can be recorded at this stage that the petitioner has not committed the offence or that, if released on bail, he is not likely to commit any such offence, no ground for bail is made out.

Dismissed.

6.

Petition dismissed.