IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM No. M-8096 of 2011 Date of decision: 17.3.2011 Jai Pal …. Petitioner Versus State of Haryana …. Respondent Present: Mr. A.S. Manaise, Advocate for the petitioner. *** S.S. SARON, J. Heard counsel for the petitioner. The petitioner seeks regular bail in a case registered against him on 13.10.2010 for the offence under Section 20 of the NDPS Act. The FIR in the case has been registered on the statement of Sub Inspector Raghbir Singh who along with Head Constable Shiv Ram and Constable Jai Singh was present at Fountain Chowk, Naraingarh in a Government vehicle which was driven by ASI Amar Singh. They were patrolling the area and checking bad elements. At that time EHC Jai Kishan, Kaithal Anti Narcotic Cell, State Crime Branch Haryana met them. He was in a civil dress. He informed that a secret informer had given information that Jai Pal (petitioner) was smuggling charas since a long time. He was about to come to village Lotto to supply charas to some unknown person. He was wearing a check shirt and black pant and he carries charas in his white Maruti 800 car bearing CRM No. M-8096 of 2011 [2] No.HR51-4188. On the date of incident (i.e. 13.10.2010) he was to supply the contraband in the same car. If he was stopped and searched then charas would be recovered from him. The information was found credible. Therefore, SI Raghbir Singh started preparing a raiding party. Thereafter, appropriate directions were given by SI Raghbir Singh to proceed for village Lotto. A check post was set up at about 10 steps away from the flourmill and grocery shop at village Lotto and the police party waited there. After about 15 minutes, one white colour Maruti car bearing No. HR-51-4188 was seen coming from the opposite direction on the way to village Lotto. The vehicle was signalled to stop and sub- Inspector Raghbir Singh with the help of his colleagues inquired about the name and address of the person sitting inside the car. The said person disclosed his name as Jai Pal (petitioner). He was served with a notice under Section 50 of the NDPS Act; besides, he was informed that a search was to be conducted as he was suspected to be carrying intoxicant substances. The petitioner was also informed that his search could be conducted by a Gazetted Officer for which he has a right. If he wanted, a Gazetted Officer could be called at the spot or he could be taken there. The petitioner submitted that he would prefer his search to be conducted by a Gazetted Officer of Police. On this DSP Raj Kumar was informed and asked to come at the spot. An effort was also made to join independent witnesses in the raiding party but everyone expressed their helplessness. After bout 50 minutes, DSP Raj Kumar reached the spot and after giving necessary notice, a search of the petitioner was carried out by SI Raghbir Singh. On search from the waist of the pant worn by the petitioner, CRM No. M-8096 of 2011 [3] one white colour polythene bag was recovered. From the said bag, a thin wafer type and pencil type substance was recovered, which was observed on the basis of experience and was found to be charas. It weighed 1 kg 104 gms. A sample of 10 gms was taken. The remaining contraband was put in a separate parcel. The sample parcel and the charas parcel were sealed with 4 seals bearing seal BR and the DSP also put two seals bearing seal RK on the sample. SI Raghbir Singh after keeping the sample seal, handed over his seal to Shiv Ram and the DSP after keeping the sample seal retained his seal with himself. The recovered parcel of charas, sample parcel and sample seal were taken in possession by the police. The Maruti Car was also taken in police possession vide separate memo. The accused was arrested. It is alleged that the petitioner by keeping charas had committed an offence under Section 20 of the NDPS Act. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the petitioner has been falsely implicated and it is unlikely that the contraband weighing 1 kg 104 gms was being carried by the petitioner on the waist of his pant. Besides, it is submitted that the police did not join any independent witness in the raiding party and it is merely mentioned that an effort was made to join the independent witnesses. It is submitted that Jai Singh, Constable who was part of the raiding party has been examined and he has stated that no public person was called by the Investigating Officer from the village. Therefore, it is submitted that the petitioner is entitled to the concession of bail. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the matter. The petitioner was apprehended with 1 kg 104 gms CRM No. M-8096 of 2011 [4] of charas which is a commercial quantity. The chances of same being planted are quite remote. The recovery was effected from the waist of the pant worn by the petitioner. There is no reason whatsoever for the police to falsely implicate the petitioner. The question whether independent witnesses were joined or not and its effect, is to be considered at the time of arguments by the learned trial Court. The trial in the case is going one. In view of the above, no ground is made out for the grant of concession of bail. The Crl. Misc. petition is, accordingly, dismissed. (S.S. SARON) JUDGE March 17, 2011 amit