CRM No.M-30212 of 2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM No.M-30212 of 2010(O&M) Date of Decision:08.11.2010 Jasbir Singh @ Pammu ......Petitioner Versus State of Punjab .....Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR. Present: Mr.Satnam Singh Gill, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr.Shilesh Gupta, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab. **** M EHINDER S INGH S ULLAR , J.(oral) Petitioner-Jasbir Singh @ Pammu, has instituted the instant second petition for regular bail in a case registered against him along with his other co- accused, namely, Sukhbir Singh @ Bittu and Partap Singh @ Kala etc., vide FIR No.282 dated 18.09.2006, on accusation of having committed the offences punishable under Section 15 of the NDPS Act (for brevity “the Act”) and Section 279 IPC, by the police of Police Station Samana, District Patiala, invoking the provisions of Section 439 Cr.P.C. 2. Succinctly, the prosecution claimed that on 18.09.2006, a police party headed by Inspector Karansher Singh, SHO, P.S. Samana, was present at Special Nakabandi at P.P.Ram Nagar and were checking the vehicles. PW- Gurnam Singh, Namberdar, son of Ajmer Singh, was also present with the police party. In the meantime, a secret information was received that the petitioner along with his other co-accused were engaged in smuggling and indulged in illegal trade of poppy husk. They were carrying poppy husk in large quantity in a Scorpio Jeep bearing registration No.MH-43-A-8858. On the following morning, at about 4 CRM No.M-30212 of 2010 2 AM, one Scorpio Jeep came from the side of Ram Nagar at a very high speed in a rash and negligent manner. Inspector/SHO signalled with the torch to stop the Jeep with the help of other police officials, but instead of stopping, its driver fled away by breaking the Barrier. He could not control and the vehicle hit against the standing tree. An extra number plate was also covered with the cover. The other accused were stated to have ran away from the place of occurrence taking the benefit of darkness. But the driver-Partap Singh @ Kala was apprehended by the police. On interrogation, he disclosed the name of the petitioner and other co- accused, who were carrying the poppy husk. After following the due procedure, the prosecution claimed that in the wake of search, 12 gunny bags, containing 40 kg. each of poppy husk (total 480 kgs.) were recovered from the Scorpio Jeep of the accused. After separating and sealing the sample, the remaining poppy husk was separately sealed. 3. Levelling a variety of allegations and narrating the sequence of events in all, according to the prosecution that 480 kgs. (commercial quantity) of poppy husk was recovered from the Scorpio Jeep of the accused. On the basis of aforesaid recovery, the present case was registered against the accused, in the manner indicated here-in-above. 4. Notice of the petition was issued to the State. 5. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, after going through the record with their valuable assistance and after considering the matter deeply, to my mind, there is no merit in the instant second petition. 6. Ex facie, the main argument of the learned counsel that since the petitioner was not arrested at the spot, so he is entitled to regular bail, is not only devoid of merit but misplaced as well. 7. As is evident from the record that there are direct allegations that the petitioner along with his other co-accused, were indulged in smuggling of illegal poppy husk at a large scale. On the fateful day, they were carrying 12 gunny bags CRM No.M-30212 of 2010 3 containing 40 kg. each of poppy husk. There is no dispute with regard to the identity of the petitioner, as he was duly identified by the driver of the vehicle, who was apprehended at the spot. Learned State Counsel has submitted that the petitioner is previously involved in a similar case registered against him by virtue of FIR No.147 dated 03.07.2002 by the police of Police Station Bhawanigarh, District Sangrur, and another case, vide FIR No.111 dated 25.07.2005 by the police of Police Station Sadar Nabha, for the commission of offence punishable under Section 15 of the Act. 8. The mere fact that the petitioner was found innocent in the above indicated cases, as urged on his behalf, is not a ground to grant him bail in the instant case of heavy/commercial quantity of poppy husk, as contemplated under Section 37 of the Act. 9. So, taking into consideration the previous involvement of the petitioner, recovery of heavy/commercial quantity of 480 kgs. poppy husk and totality of the other facts and circumstances emanating from the record, as discussed here-in-above, to me, the petitioner is not entitled to regular bail in the obtaining circumstances of the case. 10. In the light of aforesaid reasons and without commenting further anything on merits, lest it may prejudice the case of either side during the course of trial, the present petition for regular bail filed by the petitioner is hereby dismissed as such. November 08, 2010 (MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR) seema JUDGE