Read Order: Bhiv Singh v. State Of Haryana
Chandigarh, August 17, 2021: The Punjab and Haryana High Court has granted regular bail to a man facing charges under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 on the grounds that he was not apprehended on the spot, no recovery was made from him, and there is no evidence against him except the disclosure statements of his co-accused.
The petitioner was booked under section 22(c) of the NDPS Act as per an FIR registered on January 6, 2021, in Sadar Dabwali police station in Sirsa district of Haryana.
Recovery of 1,900 banned intoxicant tablets was allegedly made from co-accused Kuldeep Singh and Kubir Singh on 06.01.2021 by a police party. During investigation both the co-accused made statements alleging that they purchased the recovered contraband from the petitioner.
The counsel for the petitioner argued that he has been falsely implicated in the present case. There is no evidence to substantiate the disclosure statements of the co-accused, and nothing was recovered from the petitioner.
The counsel submitted that petitioner is not involved in any other case under the NDPS Act. Rigors of Section 37(1)(b) of the NDPS are not applicable qua the petitioner. He said the petitioner is in custody since 10.01.2021 and trial is likely to take a long time due to restrictions imposed to prevent spread of infection of Covid-19 and no useful purpose will be served by keeping the petitioner in custody. Therefore, the petitioner may be granted regular bail, the counsel pleaded.
The State Counsel, however, opposed the bail plea and submitted that in view of the nature of accusation and gravity of offence against the petitioner, he does not deserve the concession of regular bail. Therefore, the petition may be dismissed.
The High Court, however, allowed the petition and ordered that the petitioner be released on regular bail on furnishing of personal and surety bonds to the satisfaction of the trial Court/Chief Judicial Magistrate/Duty Magistrate concerned.
“Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, particularly that the petitioner was not apprehended on the spot, no recovery was made from him, there is no evidence against him except the disclosure statements of his co-accused, rigors of Section 37(1)(b) of the NDPS Act will not apply qua the petitioner and also stand satisfied by implication and the fact that trial is likely to take long time due to restrictions imposed to prevent spread of infection of Covid-19 but without commenting on merits of the case, I am of the considered view that the petitioner deserves the concession of regular bail,” said Justice Arun Kumar Tyagi.
The Bench further said that the petitioner is granted regular bail subject to the condition that he shall not commit any similar offences under the NDPS Act after his release on bail. “…in case of commission of similar offences by him in future his bail in the present case shall also be liable to be cancelled on application to be filed in this regard,” the HC added.