IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Misc. No. M-3948 of 2010 Date of decision : 16.2.2010 Baj Singh …. Petitioner Versus State of Punjab …. Respondent Present: Mrs. GK Mann, Advocate for the petitioner. **** S.S. SARON, J. Heard counsel for the petitioner. The petitioner seeks regular bail in a case registered against him for the offences under Sections 21, 25 and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act (“NDPS Act” – for short) as also Section 25 of the Arms Act. The FIR in the case has been registered on the secret information that was received by the Police party headed by Balbir Singh, Inspector, State Special Narcotics Cell Punjab, Amritsar. Inspector Balbir Singh along with his colleagues were present on Muktsar Bye-pass, Batala in a Government vehicle to check smuggling of narcotic drugs. Then a special informer gave intimation that the petitioner who was a smuggler of heroin, bogus currencies, arms and ammunition on the Indo-Pak border along with Crl. Misc. No. M-3948 of 2010 [2] Balwinder Singh son of Tara Singh were very active in smuggling of heroin in those days. On the said date i.e. 21.1.2009 both were sitting in the ‘sabzi mandi’ situated at Jalandhar Road in front of the bus stand Batala in a Indica car of Balwinder Singh for delivering heroin consignment and if a raid was conducted without any delay, they could be apprehended. The information was found to be credible and it was conveyed to the Senior Superintendent of Police, Amritsar through mobile phone. After receiving orders and directions, Inspector Balbir Singh along with his colleagues reached the parking area of the ‘sabzi mandi’ in front of the bus stand. The Indica car as mentioned by the informer was parked there. On seeing the police party, two persons standing near the car immediately got into action and sat in the car. Before the person sitting on the driver seat could flee away, Inspector Balbir Singh with the help of his colleagues apprehended him. The other person tried to run away by breaking the police cordon but he was apprehended by the police party with a hand bag in his hand. On inquiry, the apprehended persons gave their names as Baj Singh @ Baja (petitioner) and Balwinder Singh son of Tara Singh. The Inspector informed them that he had received information that they were in possession of narcotic drugs and that a search was to be carried out. They were also informed that they have a right to get their search conducted either from a Magistrate or a Gazetted Officer and he (Inspector) can make arrangements for the same. The persons who were apprehended stated that they wanted to get their search from a Gazetted Officer. Their statements were recorded. Then Inspector Balbir Singh intimated Sh. Rajpal Singh, Deputy Superintendent of Police, Amritsar about the position and Crl. Misc. No. M-3948 of 2010 [3] requested him to reach the spot. In the meanwhile an attempt was made to associate witnesses from the public. One person namely Shamsher Singh son of Hansa Singh joined the police party by treating it as his moral duty. The Deputy Superintendent of Police reached the place and introduced himself to the persons who had been apprehended and informed them that a search of objectionable narcotic drugs was to be carried out. But they had a right to be searched by other Gazetted Officer or Magistrate to which they separately stated that they had confidence in DSP Rajpal Singh and he could carry out their search. Consent memo of both the persons who were apprehended was prepared which was signed by the petitioner and his co-accused Balwinder Singh. In the presence of Rajpal Singh, Deputy Superintendent of Police, Inspector Balbir Singh carried out search of Baj Singh and from him one .32 bore revolver was recovered. On further search, one mobile Samsung and Rs.300/- of Indian currency notes were recovered. Besides, six live cartridges were also recovered. After preparing a parcel with a cloth, the recovered .32 bore revolver and six live cartridges were taken in possession. On the search of Balwinder Singh, one packet of heroin was recovered which was packed in a cloth packet and found sealed with an egg shaped seal of blue colour. Suitable arrangements were made for weighing the recovered contraband. After weighing the contraband, it was found to be of 1 kg. Out of the same two samples of 5 gms each were taken and put in plastic boxes. The remaining heroin was put in cloth parcels and the said parcels of recovered heroin and the sample were taken in possession by Inspector Balbir Singh and the witnesses put their witness on the farad which was Crl. Misc. No. M-3948 of 2010 [4] verified by Deputy Superintendent of Police. It was observed that Baj Singh (petitioner) and Balwinder Singh could not produce any licence, permit or documents for keeping one kg. heroin and one .32 bore revolver along with six live cartridges in their possession and they had committed an offence under the NDPS Act. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has contended that .32 bore revolver and six live cartridges only are alleged to have been recovered from the petitioner whereas the heroin that is said to be recovered was recovered from his co-accused namely Balwinder Singh. Besides, it is submitted that the trial in the case is not progressing. After giving my thoughtful consideration to the matter, it may be noticed that the petitioner along with his co-accused were found in possession of one kg heroin. The recovery that has been effected is a commercial quantity. The petitioner himself was carrying a .32 bore revolver without licence, which has been recovered. The allegations against the petitioner are serious in nature. The fact that the contraband is not recovered from the person of the petitioner and whether he was in conscious possession of the same along with his co-accused Balwinder Singh or not is to be gone into by the trial Court after evidence has been led. At this stage, it would be premature to go into this aspect and determine the same. As regards the trial in the case not making any progress, learned counsel for the petitioner has not been able to submit as to how many witnesses have been cited by the prosecution in the case and how many have been examined and as to how many remain to be examined. Crl. Misc. No. M-3948 of 2010 [5] Therefore, in the facts and circumstances, no ground for concession of bail is made out at this stage. Accordingly, the Crl. Misc. petition is dismissed. (S.S. SARON) JUDGE February 16, 2010 amit