Crl. Misc. No. M-35892 of 2011(O&M) -1- In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh Crl. Misc. No. M-35892 of 2011(O&M) Date of Decision: December 13, 2011 Jaspal Singh @ Pal ---Petitioner versus State of Punjab ---Respondent Coram: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GURDEV SINGH *** Present: Mr.P.S.Mirpur, Advocate for the petitioner *** Gurdev Singh, J. The petitioner-accused, Jaspal Singh @ Pal son of Baldev Singh, has filed this petition under Section 438 Cr.P.C. for the grant of anticipatory bail in FIR No. 22 dated 4.4.2011 registered under Sections 15 and 25 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) in Police Station Sadar Mansa, District Mansa. He has contended therein that he is innocent and has been falsely implicated. It was not possible for any one to give a slip to 7/8 police officials, who were alleged to be present at the spot. In fact, the police officials came to his house on 4.4.2011 and took the search of his house but Crl. Misc. No. M-35892 of 2011(O&M) -2- no illegal substance was recovered. Thereafter, a threat was given to his wife that they would be involved in some false case. Those police officials even brought his wife, Paramjit Kaur, with them. About that act of the police officials, an application was given by Shinder Kaur, wife of his younger brother, to Deputy Commissioner, Mansa, but no action was taken. He is ready to join the investigation as and when required. As per the facts disclosed in the FIR, it was on 4.4.2011 that the police party, headed by Jagdev Singh, ASI, intercepted the motor car make Uno bearing Registration No. DL- 3CP-8377, but the driver thereof managed to escape after coming out of the same. One lady was found sitting on the front seat, who disclosed her name as Paramjit Kaur. She disclosed that it was her husband, Jaspal Singh, who had so escaped from the spot. The search of the car was taken, after following safeguards as provided under the Act, which resulted in the recovery of 120 Kgs and 400 grams of poppy husk. Before taking the search, Paramjit Kaur was made aware of her right to get the search effected in the presence of the Gazetted Officer or Magistrate and it was in view of the option exercised by her that the DSP was called to the spot and the search was taken in the presence of that DSP. The present petition has been pressed by learned counsel for the petitioner on the ground that the present case is a case of false implication and the story put forward by the Investigating Agency is highly improbable. It was not possible for the petitioner to escape from the spot when the police party consisting of such number of police officials was present there. He has referred to the application, Annexure P-2, which was given to the Deputy Commissioner, Mansa, by Shinder Kaur. Crl. Misc. No. M-35892 of 2011(O&M) -3- The said application, Annexure P-2. is dated 22.6.2011 and it has not been disclosed in the petition as to on which date that application was given to the Deputy Commissioner. It cannot be believed that the relatives of the accused would wait for more than two months before giving such an application in case Paramjit Kaur had been forcibly taken from her house and false case had been made against her. The story of the Investigating Agency cannot be said to improbable merely on the ground that the present petitioner could not be apprehended at the spot by so many police officials. It always depends on the distance from which a person escapes and the nature of his physique, age health, as compared to the physique, age and health of the police officials. There is nothing on the record to conclude that a false FIR has been registered against the accused. When the accused was driving the car, he is supposed to be in conscious possession of the articles/substance, which were/was recovered therefrom. It cannot be said that there are reasonable grounds for believing that the accused did not commit the offence under Sections 15 and 25 of the Act or that he will not commit such like offence in case released on bail. Therefore, he is not entitled to the benefit of anticipatory bail and the petition is dismissed accordingly. (GURDEV SINGH) JUDGE December 13, 2011 PARAMJIT