Mukesh Kumar vs State Of Haryana

Anoop Chitkara, J

FIR No.

Dated

Police Station

Sections

352

16.08.2020

Tohana, Distt. Fatehabad

22(C), 27-A, 61 & 85 of NDPS Act

The petitioner, incarcerating upon his arrest for possessing a massive commercial quantity of tablets containing Tramadol, 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.

In paragraph 7 of the bail petition, the accused declares that he has no criminal antecedents.

On 16th Aug 2020, the police party headed by SI Sadhu Ram was checking vehicles at Tohana. At that time, they noticed a Maruti car where two young boys were sitting. The Police officials signaled the car to stop, but it sped away, and when chased, they abandoned the car on the street at Tohana. The police could not catch the occupants of the car. In search of the car, the Investigator recovered a large number of tablets, which later on were tested by the laboratory to contain Tramadol, and the total quantity of tablets weighed 16.368-kilograms. During the investigation, the police got information from one Jaswant that he had seen two boys running in the field, and one was shouting at the other, saying Bhagwan Singh, take me along with you. Later on, the police recovered an affidavit (Annexure R-10), which showed that the car from which the police had recovered intoxicants was in possession of Bhagwan Singh by way of an affidavit in June 2020, and Bhagwan Singh gave the affidavit that he had taken the car’s possession and he shall be responsible for all taxes, etc. During further investigation, the police collected evidence by way of call details between the accused Manpreet and Mukesh.The evidence against the petitioner Manpreet Singh was that he was in the car and after arrest was identified by the Investigator. Furthermore, there are call details between him and Mukesh Kumar, the co-accused.

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.

REASONING:

The quantity allegedly involved in this case is commercial. Given this, the rigors of S. 37 of the NDPS Act apply in the present case. The burden is on the petitioner to satisfy the twin conditions put in place by the Legislature under Section 37 of the NDPS Act.

The evidence connects the accused Manpreet and Mukesh through call details, and Manpreet had run away from the car from which the police had recovered the tablets. Given the evidence of the accused running away from the car and the call details are sufficient for a prima facie case, and the burden placed by the State under section 37 of NDPS Act, shifts on the petitioner to dispel.

The petitioner claims bail because so many persons accused for possessing commercial quantity have been granted bail is misconceived, because once an accused discharges the burden of section 37, the rigors eclipse. In the present case, there is sufficient evidence to connect the petitioner with the recovery. Thus, the petitioner is not entitled to bail on this ground.

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

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. All pending applications, if any, stand disposed.