IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Crl.Misc. Petition No.M-2954 of 2010 Date of Decision: 11.10.2010 Amardeep Singh. ....... Petitioner through Shri S.S.Dass, Advocate. Versus Directorate of Revenue Intelligence. ....... Respondent through Shri D.D.Sharma, Standing Counsel for Union of India. CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MAHESH GROVER .... 1. Whether Reporters of Local Newspapers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? .... Mahesh Grover,J. This is a petition under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure,1973 (for short, `the Cr.P.C.') for grant of bail to the petitioner in complaint case no. SC-304 dated 5.9.2008 under Sections 2, 9A, 25A, 27A, 28, 29 & 60 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act,1985 ) (for short, `the Act'). The petitioner was arrested on 10.3.2008 in the aforementioned case by the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence, Ludhiana (for brevity, `the DRI') and the trial is pending in the Court of Judge, Special Court, Ludhiana. The prosecution case, in brief, is that on an intelligence report Crl.Misc.Petition No. M-2954 of 2010 -2- .... having been received by the officials of the DRI on 8.3.2008, a truck bearing no. PB11-W-5237 was intercepted near the Traffic Lights of Sahnewal on Khanna-Ludhiana Road which was coming towards Ludhiana from Patiala. After interception, the said truck was brought to Transport Nagar, Ludhiana. There, its driver, namely, Jaspal Singh was supposed to meet the owner of the goods loaded in the truck for further directions. In the meantime, two persons came at the spot in a vehicle bearing registration no. CH-23(T)-4959 and approached towards the said truck. When the officials of the DRI made an attempt to apprehend them, one person, managed to escape, whereas the petitioner -Amardeep Singh was the other person, who was apprehended at the spot. He disclosed the name of the person, who escaped, as Ranjit Singh Sangha alias Bittoo son of Gurmeet Singh, resident of Canada, with local address as V.& P.O. Langri, District Hoshiarpur. On search of the truck, 232 kgs. and 237 grams of Ephedrine packed in ten gunny bags which were marked to contain `citric acid' was recovered. These bags were kept along with the bags of grocery items. On the basis of the information supposedly given by the petitioner and driver- Jaspal Singh, the officials of the DRI conducted search and seizure operation in Hotel Grand Park, Patiala and found that one Harjinder Singh (co-accused), who has since been released on bail pursuant to the provisions of Section 167(2) of the Cr.P.C., was staying there in a room from where Rs.2,91,300/- along with five mobile phones, one sim card and 1837 kgs. of Ephedrine were recovered. The statement of Harjinder Singh was recorded and similarly, the statement of the truck driver was also recorded. It was Crl.Misc.Petition No. M-2954 of 2010 -3- .... established that Harjinder Singh had loaded in the truck in question Ephedrine, which a controlled substance, and the grocery items from his rented accommodation, i.e., House No.652, Adarsh Colony, Patiala on 8.3.2008 and had made payment to the driver for its transportation. Harjinder Singh had further stated that he had loaded 110 gunny bags of grocery items and 10 packets (gunny bags) weighing 23 kg. totaling 120 packets by hiring the truck on payment of Rs.5000/- and at that time, he had given out his name as Sunny. It was, thus, established that said Harjinder Singh had dispatched the consignment which was to be received by the petitioner and another person, who had escaped and that all these persons were involved in illegal trafficking and transportation of Ephedrine which was a precursor chemical used in the manufacture of methamphetamine and ecstasy tablets and was a controlled substance as per notification no. SO No.1296(E) dated 28.12.1999. The contention of the learned counsel is that the petitioner is in custody for a considerable long time and that he was not found in conscious possession of the contraband. He further contended that the Ephedrine which was found in the possession of the petitioner is not covered under the Act. It was, thus, submitted that due to this and for the reason that co- accused of the petitioner have already been released on bail and also for the reason that no case under the Act has been made out, he deserves the concession of bail. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent contended that huge quantity of Ephedrine was recovered from the Crl.Misc.Petition No. M-2954 of 2010 -4- .... petitioner which was concealed in the bags branded as Citric Acid which revealed his true intent and the factum of the recovered article being Ephedrine has been confirmed in the report of the Central Forensic Science Laboratory (C.F.S.L.) and consequently, the petitioner is not entitled to bail. It was further contended that the co-accused of the petitioner have been granted bail merely on the lack of the prosecution to submit challan within the requisite period and, therefore, no benefit can be derived by him on this score. I have considered the matter at length and has also perused the report of the C.F.S.L. This Court, on 24.9.2009, had considered the matter in detail and noticed that Ephedrine is used in manufacturing of ecstasy tablets and methamphetamine and the conduct of the petitioner in carrying the consignment concealed by fictitiously branding it as Citric Acid revealed the true intent of his mind. If the possession of Ephedrine was not offensive either to law or society, then the petitioner could not have concealed the consignment in the manner that he had done. It has been brought to the notice of the Court that charge has been framed against the petitioner and the co-accused under the provisions of the Act. However, no authentic proof has been furnished. But, learned counsel for the respondent stated that the Judge, Special Court, Ludhiana passed an order for framing of charge against the petitioner and co-accused a day prior to the hearing of this case under Section 25-A read with Section 9-A, Section 29 of the Act and under Section 28 of the Act against the petitioner only. Crl.Misc.Petition No. M-2954 of 2010 -5- .... Be that as it may, whether the petitioner has been rightly charged under the provisions of the Act or not, is a matter which he can agitate before the competent Court at an appropriate time. For the time being, the Court, prima facie, is not inclined to grant the concession of bail to the petitioner considering the huge quantity of Ephedrine which is used in manufacturing of ecstasy tablets and other drugs, which are open to abuse. The Court is also, prima facie, of the opinion that the activities of the petitioner are detrimental to the interest of society. The instant petition is, accordingly, dismissed. October 11,2010 ( Mahesh Grover ) “SCM” Judge