AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
No AI summary yet
Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.
Judgment
17 paragraphs · 370 wordsAnoop Chitkara, J
The petitioner, who is in custody on the allegations of jointly transporting 434.45 Kilograms of Poppy husk in the truck driven by one Gurnam Singh
(A-2), has come up before this Court, seeking regular bail under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
Previously also, the petitioner had filed a bail application before this Court, which was registered as Cr.MP (M) No.1676 of 2019. However, vide
order dated 3.1.2020, this Court had dismissed the same.
Mr. Kashmir Singh Thakur, learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the case of the prosecution was that the petitioner, Pawan Kumar (A-
1), was sitting in the truck being driven by Gurnam Singh (A-2). His argument is that while doing videography, the Police should have recorded him
sitting in the said truck, but there is no such evidence which shows that it was accused Pawan Kumar (A-1) only. His argument is that the petitioner
was unaware of the contents of the truck and as such petitioner cannot be burdened with the liability of contraband. Learned counsel for the petitioner
further argued that the independent witness Harjeet Singh was examined as PW-1 and even he did not support the case of the prosecution.
Mr. Nand Lal Thakur, learned Additional Advocate General, submits that it was a case of chance recovery and commercial quantity of contraband
was recovered and the burden is on the accused to come out of rigors of Section 37 of the ND&PS Act, which he has failed to do.
A perusal of the bail petition reveals that no specific stand has been taken to come out of rigors of Section 37 of the ND&PS Act. The arguments
are being made on technical grounds and contradictions which are the subject matter of appreciation at the time of final judgment. Given the huge
quantity of contraband involved, the burden on the accused increases and it is for him to satisfy this Court that why he should be granted bail in the
light of Section 37 of the ND&PS Act. The petitioner has miserably failed to do so.
Given above, there is no merit in the case and the bail petition is accordingly dismissed.