IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Criminal Misc. No.33561 -M of 2009 DATE OF DECISION : FEBRUARY 22, 2010 SH. HARBHAJAN LAL ....... PETITIONER(S) VERSUS STATE OF PUNJAB .... RESPONDENT(S) CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAI LAMBA PRESENT: Mr. Pavit Mattewal, Advocate, for the petitioner(s). Ms. Rajni Gupta, Addl.AG, Punjab. AJAI LAMBA, J. (Oral) This petition under Section 439, Code of Criminal Procedure, has been filed for bail in case FIR No.215 dated 4.11.2008 under Sections 18/25 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, Police Station, Sultanwind, District Amritsar. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the case. This fact is evident from the circumstance that Shri Gurbax Lal, DSP, serving in District Ferozepur, was in the raiding party. It has further been stated that the petitioner is not connected with the car from which the contraband has been recovered. On consideration of the circumstances, it is shown that the petitioner was driving car bearing registration No. PB-18/C-5225. On apprehension, the car was stopped. 4 bags of opium were found hidden under the spare tyre of the vehicle. At the time of raid, Shri Gurbax Lal, Criminal Misc. No.33561 -M of 2009 2 PPS, DSP, Special Narcotic Cell, Ferozepur, and Inspector Balbir Singh from Special Narcotic Cell, Amritsar, were present. Learned counsel for the respondent-State has pointed out that the statement of registered owner of the car has been recorded, which indicates that the petitioner had purchased the vehicle in question. The petitioner himself was found driving the vehicle where from the contraband has been recovered. It has further been pointed out that Shri Gurbax Lal, DSP, had information that the petitioner has been indulging in such activities. The said person happened to be in District Amritsar when the raid was conducted and, therefore, the circumstance, by itself, does not indicate false implication. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the opinion that it would be for the trial court to see whether the presence of a DSP from another District would be fatal to the prosecution case or not. As far as the aspect of bail is concerned, the circumstances that the petitioner was found driving the vehicle; 4 Kgs. of opium was found concealed under the spare tyre and the registered owner of the car has stated that the petitioner had purchased the vehicle, would be sufficient to indicate, prima facie, the culpability of the petitioner. No ground for bail is made out. The petition is dismissed. February 22, 2010 ( AJAI LAMBA ) Kang JUDGE 1. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?