Sukhdev Singh vs State of Punjab

Rajan Gupta, J.—In this petition u/s 438 Cr. P.C., petitioner has sought pre-arrest bail in a case registered against him under Sections 15 & 18 of the Narcotic Drugs & Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") and Section 411 IPC at Police Station Tibber, District Gurdaspur, vide FIR No. 13 dated 8th April, 2011.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the premises of the petitioner was raided by the police in his absence and his house was ransacked. Some contraband and other things were planted at his house. According to him, petitioner has no role to play in the commission of crime and thus, he is entitled to the concession of pre-arrest bail. According to him, search and seizure had been made in violation of provisions of Section 42(2) of the Act.

Learned State counsel has opposed the prayer and seeks to place on record affidavit of Ajinder Singh, Dy. S.P., City Gurdaspur. Referring to same, he has submitted that on 8th April, 2011, SHO Police Station Tibber received information that petitioner and his wife were dealing in sale/purchase of intoxicating substance. Finding information reliable, the investigating agency raided the place. On seeing the police party, the petitioner fled. On search of house, 16 currency notes of different countries, 150 grams of smack, 530 grams of opium, 3.00 Kgs of poppy husk and 48 mobile phones were recovered. Same were taken into possession. According to him, a special investigation team has been constituted, which is conducting the investigation in totally impartial manner. Custodial interrogation of the petitioner is required for taking the investigation to its logical end.

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and given careful thought to the facts of the case.

It appears that in the raid, which was conducted by the police, recovery of foreign currency worth about Rs. 1.00 lac, various types of contraband, all non-commercial in nature and some mobile phones was effected. Admittedly, the petitioner joined the investigation after ad-interim pre-arrest bail was granted. It is not the case of the State that Section 37 of the Act is attracted to the instant case. Admittedly, recovery has already been effected by the police. It, thus, appears that custodial interrogation will be unnecessary. The petition is, thus, allowed and the interim order dated November 02, 2011 is made absolute subject to provisions of Section 438(2) Cr. P.C. SIT shall proceed to complete the investigation expeditiously. The entire case shall, however, be monitored by Inspector General of Police under whose jurisdiction the area falls.