Gurdas Singh vs State of Punjab

Mehinder Singh Sullar, J.—Invoking the provisions of Section 438 IPC., Petitioner Gurdas Singh son of Sadar Singh, has instituted the instant petition for anticipatory bail in a case registered against him, vide FIR No. 98 dated 14.4.2010, on accusation of having committed an offence punishable u/s 15 of the Narcotic Drugs & Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short "the Act") by the police of Police Station Nakodar, Distt. Jalandhar.

Notice of the petition was issued to the State.

Having heard the learned Counsel for the parties, having gone through the record with their valuable assistance and after bestowal of thoughts over the entire matter, to my mind, there is no merit in the present petition.

What is not disputed here is that the Petitioner is a habitual offender and is involved in cases registered against him, vide FIR No. 148 dated 18.4.1997 u/s 15 of the Act by the police of Police Station Sadar Abohar; FIR No. 266 dated 1.8.2001 u/s 61 of the Punjab Excise Act by the police of Police Station Mehatpur and FIR No. 289 dated 20.7.2005 u/s 15 of the Act by the police of Police Station Division No. 7, Jalandhar. Meaning thereby, there are direct allegations that the Petitioner is indulging in narcotic trade and 15 Kgs. of Poppy Husk was recovered from him.

The anticipatory bail is not to be granted as a matter of course in all cases. The grant or refusal of such bail depends on the variety of circumstances, the cumulative effect of which, should enter the judicial verdict. The power u/s 438 Code of Criminal Procedure is to be exercised sparingly and in exceptional cases keeping into focus the facts and circumstances of each case. The order of anticipatory bail cannot be allowed to circumvent normal procedure of arrest and investigation of the police. The Court has also to see that the investigation in the province of the police and an order of anticipatory bail should not operate as an in-road into the statutory investigational powers of the police, in exercising the judicial discretion in granting the anticipatory bail. The Court should not be unmindful of the difficulties likely to be faced by the investigating agency and the public interest likely to be affected thereby.

In this manner, taking into consideration the totality of the facts and circumstances, nature and gravity of the accusation emanating from the record, as discussed above, to me, the Petitioner is not entitled to the concession of anticipatory bail under these circumstances.

In the light of aforesaid reasons and without commenting further anything on merits, lest it may prejudice the case of either side during the course of the trial of the case, the instant petition for anticipatory bail filed by the Petitioner is hereby dismissed, in the obtaining circumstances of the case.

Needless to state that nothing observed, here-in-above, would reflect, in any manner, on merits of the main case, because the same has been so recorded for a limited purpose of deciding the present petition.