Criminal Misc. No. M-26861 of 2009 [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Misc. No. M-26861 of 2009 (O&M) Date of decision: 5.11.2009 Mukesh Kumar alias Mukeshia .. Petitioner v. State of Haryana .. Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BINDAL Present: Mr. Jagjit Gill, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Vivek Lamba, Assistant Advocate General, Haryana. .. Rajesh Bindal J. The petitioner, who was arrested on 23.7.2009 in FIR No. 135 dated 1.5.1998, registered under Sections 15, 16, 61, 85 of the NDPS Act, Police Station, Sadar Dabwalia, District Sirsa, has prayed for grant of regular bail. As per the FIR, an abandoned canter was found, in which besides 40 bags of onion, 20 bags of poppyhusk were there. The FIR was registered. The number plates of the canter were missing. From the engine number and chasis number, it was found that the canter was originally owned by one Om Parkash of Sikar, which was transferred on power of attorney to one Jai Parkash and subsequently sold to Mohinder, resident of Jhunjhun. On the statement of Bharat Singh recorded on 30.12.1998, the petitioner was arrested. It was stated by him that the petitioner, who was driver on the canter at the relevant time, had stated before him in May, 1998 only that the canter which was carrying poppyhusk had been detained by the police. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is merely doing agricultural work. He does not even have a driving licence. He did not ever work as a driver on the canter owned by Mohinder. The only material against the petitioner is the statement made by Bharat Singh, who is not at all related in the crime. Even during investigation, the prosecution had not been able to collect any evidence that the petitioner either knows driving or had ever worked as professional driver on any canter. He has been falsely implicated. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State submitted that the Criminal Misc. No. M-26861 of 2009 [2] petitioner was declared Proclaimed Offender and at this stage after he has been arrested more than a decade after registration of the FIR, he does not deserve the concession of bail. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and considering the aforesaid facts, however, especially that the prosecution has not collected any independent evidence except the statement of Bharat Singh, which could connect the petitioner with the crime, considering the fact that the stand of the petitioner is that he does not know even driving, whereas the allegation against the petitioner is that he was driver on the canter, which was carrying poppyhusk, in my opinion, case for bail pending trial is made out. Accordingly, it is directed that the petitioner shall be released on bail on furnishing of bail bonds to the satisfaction of Chief Judicial Magistrate/Duty Magistrate, Sirsa. The petition stands disposed of. (Rajesh Bindal) Judge 5.11.2009 mk