Crl. Misc. No. M- 27649 of 2011(O&M) -1- In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh Crl. Misc. No. M- 27649 of 2011(O&M) Date of Decision: November 04, 2011 Bagga Singh ---Petitioner versus State of Haryana ---Respondent Coram: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GURDEV SINGH *** Present: Mr.Jatinder Pal Singh, Advocate, for the petitioner *** Gurdev Singh, J. Heard. This petition under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed by Bagga Singh- petitioner-accused, for the grant of bail in FIR No. 244 dated 27.9.2010 registered under Section 17 and 18 of the Narcotic and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1895(hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) in Police Station, Sadar Sirsa. He has contended therein that he has been falsely implicated. He was only driver of the motor cycle and had offered to give the lift to the co-accused, who was in conscious possession of the opium, alleged to have so recovered. There is non- Crl. Misc. No. M- 27649 of 2011(O&M) -2- compliance of the provisions of Section 50 of the Act and the prosecution's case also suffers from the infirmity of non-joining of an independent witness, though the recovery is alleged to have been effected from a public place, which was the bus stand. As per the facts narrated in the FIR, it was on the secret information received by the Investigating Officer that he held a nakabandi and while that nakabandi was being held, present petitioner, accompanied by one Nirmal, came on motor cycle bearing Registration No. HR-24-J- 4349. Both of them were given the option to get the search effected in the presence of a Gazetted Officer or Magistrate, as the Investigating Officer had entertained a doubt that they were carrying some narcotic substance in the bag, which was lying on the seat of the motor cycle, between the two accused. After the accused gave their option to be searched in the presence of some Gazetted Officer or Magistrate, the DSP was called to the spot and the search was effected in his presence, on which opium was recovered from the said bag and the total contents thereof was found to be 4 kg and 300 gms, which is a commercial quantity. It has been submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner can not be said to be in conscious possession of the opium as he was driving the motor cycle and that contraband was of the other accused. He also tried to assert that the non-joining of independent witness itself is a ground for doubting the version as given in the FIR. It is very much clear from the contents of the FIR that the bag, from which the opium was recovered, was lying between two accused on the seat of motor cycle and as such, it can be said prima facie that the petitioner-accused was in conscious possession thereof. It will be seen at Crl. Misc. No. M- 27649 of 2011(O&M) -3- the time of trial as to what is the effect of non-joining of independent witness as there is no rule of law that the conviction of the accused cannot be recorded on the statements of the police officials in the absence of corroboration from the independent witness. The provisions of Section 50 of the Act were duly complied with. There are no reasonable grounds for believing that the petitioner did not commit the above said offence or that there is no likelihood of his committing such like offence in case he is released on bail. No ground for grant of bail is made out. Petition is dismissed accordingly. (GURDEV SINGH) JUDGE November 04, 2011 PARAMJIT