Jaswinder Singh vs State Of Himachal Pradesh

Satyen Vaidya, J

Petitioner is an accused in case FIR No. 159 of 2020, dated 31.5.2020, registered at Police Station, Haroli, District Una, H.P. under Sections 8 ( C),

15, 25, 27-A, 29-61-85 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short ‘the NDPS Act’). The petitioner is in custody

since 1.6.2020.

Petitioner has approached this Court for grant of bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C. in the above noted case. It has been contended on behalf of the

petitioner that he is innocent and has been falsely implicated. The contraband though allegedly was seized from Truck No. HP 78-6029, belonging to

petitioner, but the petitioner had no knowledge about the contraband being carried in his truck. It has also been submitted that after completion of

investigation, the challan has been filed and the matter is pending adjudication before learned trial Court. Further, the case of petitioner is that his niece

is going to be married on 21/22.1.2022, where his presence is necessary, being maternal uncle/mama. As per petitioner, he belongs to a respectable

family of the area and he will abide by all the terms and conditions, as may be imposed against him. No recovery is left to be made from the petitioner.

Petitioner has further undertaken not to flee from course of justice.

The respondent has contested the prayer of the petitioner and has opposed the application on the grounds that the petitioner is involved in an

offence of very serious nature. Total 1733.500 kg poppy husk was recovered and seized from the truck belonging to petitioner. As per the case of

respondent, petitioner was present at spot along with the truck, immediately before the seizure of contraband and had fled the scene on noticing the

police party. Petitioner, however, was seen while fleeing from the spot by one of the police official, who later identified the petitioner, as the same

person in a duly held test identification parade. It has also been alleged that the petitioner along with his nephew, co-accused Deepak @ Deepa had

brought and transported the contraband from Kashmir.

I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the records carefully.

Petitioner is an accused in a case involving a huge quantity of poppy husk i.e. 1733.500 kg, which is much more than the commercial quantity, as

specified in Notification, issued by the competent authority in exercise of powers under NDPS Act, 1985. Petitioner has not denied being owner of the

truck from which such huge quantity of contraband was seized. Petitioner has been identified in a test identification parade, to be the person, who had

fled from the scene immediately before seizure of the contraband. The other co-accused named Deepak @ Deepa, who allegedly drove the truck is

none else than a nephew of petitioner.

Thus, it is not a case where the Court may be in a position to hold prima-facie that case under the NDPS Act is not made out against the petitioner.

This being so, the rigors of Section 37 of the NDPS Act become applicable and the prayer of the petitioner for grant of bail cannot be allowed.

As regards the prayer of the petitioner for grant of bail only for the purpose of attending the marriage ceremony of his niece can also not be

allowed for the reasons that once the rigors of Section 37 of the NDPS Act become applicable, the prayer for grant of bail for any purpose

whatsoever cannot be allowed.

In light of the above discussion, there is no merit in the petition, the same is dismissed.

Any observation made herein above shall not be taken as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case and the trial Court shall decide the

matter uninfluenced by any observation made herein above.