Gurnam Singh @ Gamma vs State of Haryana

K.S. Kumaran, J.

Both these petitions filed under Section 439 Cr.P.C. for bail arise from the same F.I.R. namely No. 369 dated 13.12.1998 registered at Police Station Kalanwali under Sections 15, 16, 61, 85 of the N.D.P.S. Act and 279, 336 and 427 I.P.C., and are disposed of by this order.

On 13.12.1998 Subhash Ram Sub Inspector of the above said Police Station was present along with other police officials at Tarloke Wala Chowk. At that time Buta Singh met him and made a statement which reads as follows :

Buta Singh and Baru Singh were going from Dadu to Jagmalwali on a tractor trolley driven by Buta Singh and at 8 a.m. a jeep driven rashly and negligently came and struck against the tractor in which the tractor and the jeep are damaged. Baru Singh and 3/4 persons sitting in the jeep received some injuries. Three bags of churapost were found in jeep, but all the persons sitting in the jeep ran away after leaving the same. The complainant did not know them but can identify them.

According to the State, the police party after recording the statement of Buta Singh reached the spot, found in the jeep three bags each containing 40 kg of poppy husk. Samples were taken and the sample and the remainder were sealed.

Gurnam Singh alias Gama (petitioner in Crl. Misc. No. 6845M of 1999) and Jagga alias Jagsir (petitioner in Crl. Misc. No. 10272M of 1999) approached the Sessions Court Sirsa, for bail but their bail applications were dismissed by the Learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sirsa. Aggrieved, the petitioner have filed these two petitions under Section 439 Cr.P.C. for bail.

I have heard the counsel for both sides and perused the records on file.

The learned counsel for the petitioners in these petitions contends that these petitioners have not been named in the F.I.R., that no identification parade has also been conducted, that no recovery has been made from them and there is also no evidence to connect them with this crime. He also points out that the coaccused Madan Lal (who is owner of the vehicle) and Nahar Singh have also been released on bail. He also contends that the petitioners are neither owners nor even drivers of the jeep from which the contraband were allegedly seized. He further contends that offences under Sections 279, 336 and 427 I.P.C. are bailable offences and, therefore, these petitioners are entitled to be released on bail.

Of course, learned counsel for the State contends that Baru Singh has identified the petitioners. But the learned counsel for the petitioners has produced the copy of the statement made by Baru Singh (as annexure P4 in Crl. Misc. No. 6845M of 1999). Pointing out to that statement, learned counsel for the petitioners contends that this statement is alleged to have been made on 13.12.1998 i.e. the date of the complaint itself, and that even in this statement Baru Singh has stated that he has now come to know the names of these person and had given the names, but, if really he had known their names on the date of the occurrence itself then the names would have been given in the F.I.R. lodged on the same day.

Another contention put forward by the State is that both these petitioners are involved in an earlier case arising under the N.D.P.S. Act and, therefore, in view of the bar contained in Section 37 of the said Act, petitioners cannot be granted bail. Learned counsel for the State pointed out that petitioner Gurnam Singh alias Gama is involved in F.I.R. No. 13 dated 9.1.1997 under Section 15 of the N.D.P.S. Act registered at Police Station Kalanwali but the learned counsel for the petitioner on the other hand has produced as annexure P2 (in Crl. Misc. No 6845M/1999) the copy of the judgment relating to the abovesaid F.I.R. which shows that he has been acquitted in that case. Therefore, taking into consideration the arguments put forward by both the sides but at the same time without meaning to express any opinion on the merits of the main case, I am of the view that Gurnam Singh alias Gama petitioner in Crl. Misc. No. 6845M/1999 is entitled to be released on bail.

But as pointed out already, the learned counsel for the State has brought to my notice that Jagga @ Jagsir (petitioner in Crl. Misc. No. 10272M/1999) is involved in F.I.R. No. 50 dated 26.1.1998 under the N.D.P.S. Act, registered at Police Station Kalanwali. Therefore, without meaning to express any opinion on the merits of the main case, I am of the view that Jagga Singh @ Jagsir the petitioner in Crl. Misc. No. 10272M/1999 will not be entitled to bail in view of the provisions of Section 37 of the Act, since he is already involved in another case arising under the N.D.P.S. Act and there is also no guarantee that he will not indulge in such offences under the N.D.P.S. Act in future. Therefore, he will not be entitled to be released on bail.

Crl. Misc. No. 6845M/1999

This petition is allowed and petitioner Gurnam Singh alias Gama is ordered to be released on bail on his furnishing sufficient surety to the satisfaction of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sirsa.

Crl. Misc. No. 10272M/1999

Petition filed by Jagga alias Jagsir fails and is dismissed. Keep copies of this order in both the files.