Sajjan Singh vs State of Haryana

Tejinder Singh Dhindsa, J.—The petitioner seeks the benefit of regular bail pending trial in case FIR No. 151 dated 8.9.2011, under Sections 15/16/18/27A/21/61/85 of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act (for short "NDPS Act"), registered at Police Station Ding, District Sirsa.

Learned counsel for the parties have been heard.

The present petition has been opposed by the learned State counsel by contending that a heavy recovery of contraband i.e. 100 kgs. Poppy husk and 200 kgs. Poppy straw had been effected from the fields of the present petitioner. However, during the course of hearing of the present petition certain facts that have emerged are that FIR in question was registered on the basis of secret information having been received by the police on the basis of which a naka bandi was held, in pursuance to which two persons, namely, Om Parkash and Rahul @ Jhanda were arrested and 25 grams opium was recovered from a Scorpio vehicle. Om Parkash is stated to have made a disclosure statement as regards certain contraband having been kept at the premises of one Mohar Singh. It so transpires that Om Parkash thereafter made a second disclosure statement, on the basis of which, the alleged recovery of heavy contraband has been effected from the fields of Sajjan Singh i.e. the present petitioner.

Concededly, the present petitioner was neither apprehended from the spot nor any recovery has been effected from his person. He has been nominated as accused on account of a second disclosure statement having been suffered by co-accused Om Parkash. Under such circumstances, even though the alleged recovery of contraband is stated to be from the fields of the petitioner, yet his false implication cannot be ruled out.

The petitioner has been in custody since 9.9.2011. Learned State counsel would otherwise concede that the petitioner has clean antecedents and is not involved in any other proceedings under the NDPS Act.

It is also not in dispute that co-accused, namely, Om Parkash, Rahul @ Jhanda and Subhash have been granted the benefit of regular bail with the aid of Section 167(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure on account of non-presentation of challan within the stipulated period of 180 days from their arrest.

Keeping in view the totality of the circumstances as noticed above and coupled with the length of incarceration that the petitioner has already suffered, the petitioner is held entitled to the benefit of regular bail. Petition is allowed.

Bail to the satisfaction of trial Court.

It is, however, made clear that the observations made in this order are confined to consideration of the prayer made on behalf of the petitioner seeking regular bail and would have no bearing on the merits of the case.

Petition disposed of.