Nek Singh vs State of Haryana

Sat Pal, J.

This is a petition filed by the petitioner under section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred as the Code), seeking bail in a pending trial in case bearing FIR No. 117 dated 18th February, 1995, P.S. City Jind, under Section 15 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (in short, the Act). As per the allegations made in the FIR on 18th February, 1995, the petitioner, who was carrying one attache and one thaila was apprehended by the Police on 18th February, 1995, and as a result of the search of his attache and thaila, Poppy Husk was recovered and on weighment it was found to be 24 Kgs.

Mr. Ajay Pal Singh, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that the petitioner was arrested on 18th February, 1995 and he was being produced before the Ilaqa Magistrate for remand right from the date of his arrest. He further submitted that under clause (b) of subsection (1) of Section 36A of the Act, the Illaqa Magistrate could authorise the detention of such person for a period not exceeding 15 days. He, therefore, contended that since in the present case, the detention of the petitioner has been authorised by the Ilaqa Magistrate for more than 15 days, there was a clear violation of the mandatory provisions of the Act. He further submitted that even as per the allegations, the recovery made from the petitioner was only 24 Kgs. Poppy Husk. He, therefore, contended that the petitioner should be released on bail. In support of his contention, the learned counsel placed reliance on a judgment of this court in Bhupinder Singh v. State of Haryana, 1994(2) Recent Criminal Reports 302 .

I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the records. In this case, I have also called for the file of Cr.M. No. 9322M of 1993 (Janta Singh v. State of Punjab) and from record, I find that in this case, the matter with regard to the interpretation of clause (b) of sub section (1) of section 36A of the Act has been referred by the learned single Judge of this court to a larger bench vide order, dated 17th August, 1993. The learned Single Judge however admitted the petitioner to bail while referring the matter to a larger Bench. Thereafter, the matter was heard by a Division Bench of this court on 30th November, 1993 and vide order of the same day, the Division Bench directed that the matter be placed before Hon''ble the Chief Justice for constitution of a Full Bench to resolve the controversy. Keeping in view the facts stated hereinabove and also the alleged recovery made from the petitioner. I am of the view that it is a fit case for grant of bail. Accordingly I direct that the petitioner be admitted to bail on furnishing bail bond in the sum of Rs. 25,000/ with one surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of C.J.M. Jind. The observations made hereinabove shall, however, not have any bearing on the merits of the case.

Bail allowed.