Balkar Singh @ Phalki vs State of Haryana

R.C. Kathuria, J.

Petitioner, Balkar Singh, seeks anticipatory bail in case bearing FIR No. 474 dated 23.8.2001 registered under Section 15 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (in shoirt the Act) with Police Station Sadar, Fatehabad.

According to the prosecution allegations, on 23.8.2001, ASI Charan Singh along with other police officials was present at Tpoint in the area of village Ayalki in connection with Nakabandi. A Canter bearing registration No. HR39/4698 came towards Fatehabad side which was signalled to stop by ASI Charan Singh upon which driver of the Canter stopped the canter at some distance. Malkiat Singh was found driving the canter. One person who was sitting behind the canter was successful in making good his escape. In the meanwhile, Dyal Chand also came from the side of Fatehabad on a scooter. He was associated by the police in the investigation. Malkiat Singh disclosed the name of his companion who had escaped from the spot as Balkar Singh. Dyal Chand also disclosed the name and identity of Balkar Singh. The presence of Jiwan Singh Naib Tehsildar, Fatehabad, was secured and thereafter, seizure proceedings were conducted. On checking the Canter, seven jute bags containing poppyhusk were found lying therein and each bag was found to contain 40 Kg. of poppyhusk. After completion of the proceedings, the present case was registered.

Counsel representing the petitioner while pressing for his bail has made manifold submissions before me; firstly, that the petitioner has been roped in the present case at the behest of the Sarpanch of the village due to partyfaction in order to humiliate and harass him and further to pressurize him not to participate in the political meetings and rallies and also to instigate his covillagers to go against him; secondly, that the identity of the petitioner has not been established as admittedly, he was not apprehended at the spot and the statement of his coaccused Malkiat Singh disclosing his name as his accomplice cannot be taken into consideration because the statement of an accused made to the police during investigation of the case is inadmissible, and thirdly that an improbable version has been put forth in the report lodged because the distance of Fatehabad town is 10 kms from village Ayalki and Hissar is at a distance of 50 Kms. and the petitioneraccused had submitted a telegram at Hisar at 4.20 P.M. addressed to this Court wherein it was stated that his house has been raided in the morning of 22.8.2001 at 3 A.M. and his son Mangat Singh has been forcibly picked up by the police, which circumstances indicates that the present case has been foisted upon him.

Opposing the submissions made, it has been vehemently argued that the identity of the petitioneraccused was disclosed not only by Malkiat Singh but also by Dyal Chand who is an independent witness and his name has been specifically mentioned in the report lodged with the police and thus, it cannot be said that the name of he petitioner has been subsequently introduced during the investigation of the case. It was also pointed out by him that the very fact that the petitioneraccused managed to escape soon after the canter was intercepted by the police clearly shows that he had no explanation with regard to his being with his coaccused in the Canter and that the recovery of 240 Kgs. of poppyhusk from the Canter in which the petitioneraccused and his coaccused were travelling being a commercial quantity, the concession of bail should not be extended to him. It was also submitted by the State counsel that as many as 12 cases were already registered against the petitioneraccused before the registration of the present case against him.

By now, it is wellsettled that recording of finding in terms of Section 37 of the Act is a sinequanon for granting bail to an accused involved in the commission of crime under the Act. The main ground on which the bail has been sought is with regard to nonarrest of the petitioner at the spot and the improbable version rendered by the prosecution with regard to his presence along with the coaccused at the time when the Canter in question was intercepted. The plea of alibi taken by the petitioneraccused is to be adjudicated upon during the trial of the case. At this stage, it is manifest on record that his name figures in the report lodged. The quantity of poppy husk recovered from the possession of the petitioner and his coaccused being a commercial quantity in term of the notification dated 19.10.2001 issued by the Central Government, the rigours and limitation laid down in section 37 of the Act cannot be ignored. Consequently, it cannot be said that no case is made out all against the petitioneraccused.

For the reasons recorded above, the petition is dismissed.