Rajinder Singh @ Raja vs State Of Punjab

Anoop Chitkara, J

FIR No.

Dated

Police Station

Sections

257

28.10.2022

Lambi, District Sri Muktsar Sahib

15(b) NDPS Act.

The petitioner incarcerated for violating the above-mentioned provisions of Narcotics Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (NDPS Act) per the FIR captioned above, on the allegations of possessing 12 kgs of poppy straw, has come up before this Court under Section 439 CrPC seeking bail.

As per paragraph 9 of the bail application and the custody certificate, the accused has the following criminal antecedents:

Sr. No.

FIR/Criminal

Complaint No.

Date

Offences

Police Station

1

3

11.01.2020

15, 29 of NDPS Act

Nandgarh, District

Bathinda

2

149

25.07.2019

15 of NDPS Act

Lambi, District Sri

Muktsar Sahib

3

97

28.09.1991

15 of NDPS Act

Lambi, District Sri

Muktsar Sahib

4

66

20.07.2002

15 of NDPS Act

Kotbhai, District Sri

Muktsar Sahib

5

64

09.08.2007

382, 392, 506, 34 IPC

Bathinda

6

105

10.08.2007

379 IPC

Lambi, District Sri

Muktsar Sahib

7

95

18.06.2008

15, 61, 85 of NDPS

Act

Sadar Malout, District

Sri Muktsar Sahib

8

82

28.07.2007

382, 392 IPC

Sangat, District Bathinda

9

232

10.11.2007

25, 54, 59 of Arms

Act

Sadar Abohar, District

Fazilka

10

230

10.11.2007

399, 402, 411 IPC

Sadar Abohar, District

Fazilka

11

220

30.10.2007

379, 34 IPC

Sadar Malout, District

Sri Muktsar Sahib

12

13

30.01.2009

395, 397, 34 IPC and

25, 54, 59 of Arms Act

Sadar Dabwali, Sirsa

13

166

16.10.2007

392 IPC and Sections 25, 54 and 59 of

Arms Act

Audan, District Sirsa

14

116

31.12.2008

382 IPC

Sangat, District

Bathinda

15

255

15.07.2014

382, 454, 351, 379,

380 IPC

Kotwali Bathinda,

District Bathinda

16

6

08.01.2009

457, 380 IPC

Sangat, District

Bathinda

17

58

02.07.2014

382 IPC and 25, 54,

59 of Arms Act

Gidderbaha, District

Sri Muktsar Sahib

18

41

23.05.2015

15, 61, 85 of NDPS

Act

Kabarwala, District Sri

Muktsar Sahib

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

While opposing the bail, the State contends that 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.

NDPS Act makes possession of 12 kg of poppy husk as an offence in the following terms:

Substance Name

Poppy straw

Quantity detained

[12,000 grams] 12 Kg

Quantity type

Intermediate

Drug Quantity in % to upper limit of Intermediate

24.00%

Specified as small & Commercial in S.2(viia) & 2(xxiiia) NDPS Act, 1985

Notification No

S.O.1055(E)

dated

10-19-2001

Sr. No.

110

Common Name

(Name of Narcotic Drug and Psychotropic Substance (International non-proprietary name (INN)

Poppy straw

Other non-proprietary name

******

Chemical Name

******

Small Quantity (in gm.)

1000 [1 kg]

Commercial Quantity (in gm.)

50000 [50 kg]

Declared as punishable under NDPS Act and as per schedule defined in S.2(xi) & 2(xxiii)

NDPS Act, 1985

Notification No

S.15 & S.2(xviii) NDPS Act, S.O.821(E)

dated

11-14-1985

Sr. No.

S.2(xviii)

Common Name

(Name of Narcotic Drug and Psychotropic Substance (International non-proprietary name (INN)

******

Other non-proprietary name

******

Chemical Name

S.2(xviii) “poppy straw” means all parts (except the seeds) of the opium poppy after harvesting whether in their original form or cut, crushed or powdered and whether or not juice has been extracted therefrom; S. 2(viiib)] “illicit traffic”, in relation to narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances, means—

(i) cultivating any coca plant or gathering any portion of coca plant;

(ii) cultivating the opium poppy or any cannabis plant;

(iii) engaging in the production, manufacture, possession, sale, purchase, transportation, warehousing, concealment, use or consumption, import inter-State, export inter-State, import into India, export from India or transhipment, of narcotic drugs or psychotropic substances; S.2

(xvii) “opium poppy” means—

(a) the plant of the species Papaver somniferum L; and

(b) the plant of any other species of Papaver from which opium or any phenanthrene alkaloid can be extracted and which the Central Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette, declare to be opium poppy for the purposes of this Act;

S2. (xviii) “poppy straw” means all parts (except

the seeds) of the opium poppy after harvesting

Thus, the quantity involved is intermediate. However, prior to the present FIR, the petitioner was involved in similar cases. The petitioner is continuing in drugs taking advantage of the concessions of bail granted earlier. The custody in the present case is around four months, which cannot be termed as prolonged given the previous conviction and the quantity involved in the present case. Thus, neither the petitioner makes out a case on merits, nor any averment in the petition assures that if this recidivist is released on bail, he shall not indulge in criminal behavior.

The petition states that the accused is entitled to bail because of false implication. This must be proved in evidence. However, if the Enquiry Officer finds any truth in the allegations, while deciding Annexure P-1, provided the same had been actually filed, the petitioner shall be entitled to file a fresh application.

A perusal of the bail petition and the documents attached, prima facie points towards the petitioner’s involvement and does not make out a case for bail. Any further discussions are likely to prejudice the petitioner; this court refrains from doing so.

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 terms mentioned above. However, considering the custody, the trial will be expedited, and an endeavor will be made to complete the trial by Dec 31, 2023. In case the trial does not conclude by this date, the petitioner may file an application and his bail shall be considered on the grounds of delay in trial. The expediting of the trial and liberty to file fresh bail is subject to the condition that the petitioner shall not seek any adjournment, and if he does so, this order expediting the trial shall stand recalled automatically under section 362, read with 482 CrPC, without any further reference to this court. All pending applications, if any, stand disposed of.