Jasvir Singh @ Tilu vs State Of Punjab

Anoop Chitkara, J

FIR No.

Dated

Police Station

Sections

75

09.06.2020

Sidhwan Bet, Ludhiana

15/25/61/85 of NDPS Act

The petitioner, incarcerating upon his arrest for possessing a commercial quantity of poppy husk, in violation of Narcotics Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (NDPS Act), has come up before this Court under Section 439 of CrPC, seeking bail.

At the end of note 3 of the bail petition, the petitioner declares that no other case is pending against him nor is he involved in any other FIR, However, as per paragraph 14 of the status report, the accused has the following criminal antecedents:

Sr. No.

FIR No

Date

Offences

Police Station

1.

78

16.05.2018

15/61/85 of NDPS Act

Hathur

2.

63

12.04.2000

307, 324, 323, 354, 148 & 149 IPC

Sidhwan Bet

On 9 June 2020, the police received a secret information about transportation of poppy husk in a truck bearing registration number JK-05-C-6797, by Mohammad Latif, Jasvir Singh (Petitioner), Satnam Singh, and Kaku. After that the police laid a naka and waited for the truck, and when it reached, it was signaled to stop, however the truck stopped at a distance of 50 yards from the naka, and two persons alighted from the truck and escaped. The police nabbed two persons, i.e., the driver Mohammaed Latif and the petitioner Jasvir Singh. The accused desired the search in presence of a Gazetted officer and on this the Investigator called the DySP. On the search of the goods compartment of the truck, beneath the apple boxes, the police recovered 30 bags containing poppy husk, and in all the poppy husk weighed 10 quintals and 50 kilograms.

Ld. Counsel for the petitioner contends that the pre-trial incarceration would cause an irreversible injustice to the petitioner and family.

While opposing the bail, the contention on behalf of the State is that the quantity of contraband involved in the case falls in the commercial category, and given the criminal past, the accused is likely to indulge in crime once released on bail.

REASONING:

In Paramjeet Singh v. State of Punjab, CRM-M 50243 of 2021, this court observed,

While considering each bail petition of the accused with a criminal history, it throws an onerous responsibility upon the Courts to act judiciously with reasonableness because arbitrariness is the antithesis of law. The criminal history must be of cases where the accused was convicted, including the suspended sentences and all pending First Information Reports, wherein the bail petitioner stands arraigned as an accused. In reckoning the number of cases as criminal history, the prosecutions resulting in acquittal or discharge, or when Courts quashed the FIR; the prosecution stands withdrawn, or prosecution filed a closure report; cannot be included. Although crime is to be despised and not the criminal, yet for a recidivist, the contours of a playing field are marshy, and graver the criminal history, slushier the puddles.

A perusal of the petition does not refer to any averment based on which this court is assured that if this recidivist is released on bail, then he shall not indulge in criminal behavior.

The petitioner states that the accused is entitled to bail because the recovery was from the truck, which is not connected with the petitioner. However, the petitioner was arrested from the truck and although the recovery was not from the body of the driver, and the petitioner did not offer any explanation for the reasons of his travelling in the truck. Moreover, despite criminal antecedents, one involving a case under NDPS Act, the petitioner declared that he had no criminal history. In the facts and circumstances peculiar to this case, the argument does not satisfy the requirements of section 37 of NDPS Act.

The grounds taken in the bail petition do not shift the burden placed by the legislature on the accused under S. 37 of the NDPS Act. The petitioner has not stated anything to discharge the burden put by the stringent conditions placed in the statute by the legislature under section 37 of the NDPS Act. Thus, the petitioner has failed to make a case for bail at this stage.

In the facts and circumstances peculiar to this case, and for the reasons mentioned above, the petitioner fails to make a case for bail at this stage.

Any observation made hereinabove is neither an expression of opinion on the merits of the case nor shall the trial Court advert to these comments.

Petition dismissed in aforesaid terms. All pending applications, if any, stand disposed.