Harsh Verma vs State Of Punjab

Raj Mohan Singh, J

The case has been taken up for hearing through video-conferencing.

CRM No.1413 of 2021

For the reasons mentioned in the application, the same is allowed. Report under Section 173 (2) Cr.P.C. (Annexure P-3) is taken on record.

CRM-M No.25084 of 2020

This petition has been filed under Section 439 Cr.P.C seeking regular bail in case bearing FIR No. 28 dated 14.02.2020 under Section 21/22/25 of the

NDPS Act registered at Police Station STF Mohali, Phase-4, SAS Nagar.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the FIR was registered on the basis of secret information and police has not complied with the

mandatory provisions of Section 50 of the NDPS Act. Perusal of the consent memo would show that it was prepared under the signature of Jagtar

Singh, ASI, Special Task Force, Ludhiana on 13.02.2020 i.e. the date even on which the FIR was not in existence. FIR came to be recorded on

14.02.2020. Even number of the FIR and the date are appearing at the top of the consent memo.

Learned counsel for the petitioner, with reference to the aforesaid fact, submitted that the proceedings have been conducted by the police at some

convenient place after lodging of the FIR. Other documents are also to the same effect. Secondly, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the

FIR was registered on 14.02.2020. As per report under Section 173 (2) Cr.P.C., on 14.02.2020, ASI Jagtar Singh got the case property bearing stamp

seal along with three samples from Malkhana in good condition and presented the same before the Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class, Ludhiana (D) along

with the accused-petitioner. The Court gave one day remand of the petitioner in police custody and then put the stamp seals on the case property. The

samples were sent to FSL only on 19.02.2020.

Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that according to the instructions/ notification No.1/88 issued by the Narcotics Control Bureau, the

samples were required to be sent to FSL within 72 hours. The view expressed in Union of India vs. Bal Mukund and ohters, 2009 (2) RCR (Crl.) 574

and CRA-S No.1449-SB of 2008 titled Satpal vs. State of haryana decided on 06.08.2012 have been relied in this context in order to give indulgence in

favour of the petitioner.

The factual position of the case could not be disputed by learned State counsel except to say that a bare perusal of the FIR would show that the same

was registered on the statement recorded on 13.02.2020 and the mentioning of FIR number on the consent memo is a routine practice. However,

learned State counsel could not dispute the factum of sending the samples to FSL on 19.02.2020. Learned State counsel further submitted that the

recovery is of commercial in nature.

At this stage, without meaning anything on the merits of the case, I am of the prima facie view that the case appears to be debatable. Petitioner is not

involved in any other case. He is in custody since 14.02.2020.

In view of above, this petition is allowed. Petitioner is ordered to be released on regular bail, subject to his furnishing adequate bail bonds/surety bonds

to the satisfaction of trial Court/concerned Duty Magistrate.

Nothing expressed hereinabove would be construed to be an opinion on the merits of the case.