IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH Criminal Miscellaneous No. M-22124 of 2008 Date of Decision: October 22, 2008 Major Singh .....PETITIONER(S) VERSUS State of Punjab .....RESPONDENT(S) . . . CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAI LAMBA PRESENT: - Mr. B.S. Bhalla, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. H.S. Brar, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab. . . . AJAI LAMBA, J (Oral) This petition has been filed under Section 438 Cr.P.C. for grant of anticipatory bail in case FIR No.112 dated 21.6.2008 lodged for offences under Section(s) 15 and 25 of the Narcotic Drugs & Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short, `the Act’), with Police Station, Dharamkot, District Moga. Learned counsel contends that recovery of the contrabad i.e. 5 bags of poppy husk weighing 35 kgs each, is not from the petitioner, infact, it is from Subek Singh and Sarwan Singh. The circumstances under which the vehicle was used, are that mother of the petitioner had expired on 12.6.2008. Ceremonies in that regard were going on Crl. Misc. No. M-22124 of 2008 [2] and the petitioner remained busy. On 20.6.2008, sister of the petitioner namely Surjit Kaur wife of Balvir Singh came for making condolence. While going back, they borrowed the vehicle of the petitioner which was taken in possession alongwith contraband. Learned counsel for the respondent- State has pointed out that without dispute the petitioner was owner of the truck in question. It would be for the investigating agency to consider during investigation whether the petitioner himself had directed or consented to use of the vehicle for carrying contraband or not, and Section 438 Cr.P.C. in such circumstances ought not to be invoked as the true and complete facts are required to be unravelled which would be possible only on custodial interrogation of the petitioner. I have considered the contentions of the learned counsel. Section 25 of the Act provides that whoever being the owner of a vehicle or having control over a vehicle, knowingly permits it to be used for commission of an offence by any other person, shall be punished for that offence. Considering the totality of the facts and circumstances, it becomes clear that only custodial interrogation of the petitioner unravel true and complete facts. Whether the truck in question was given out on the asking of the other accused for transporting them to their village or not Crl. Misc. No. M-22124 of 2008 [3] is a matter to be considered by the investigating agency. The facts do not make a case for bail. The petition is dismissed. Anything said hereinabove is given in the context of the prayer made for grant of bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C. and shall not be considered as an opinion on the merits of the case. (AJAI LAMBA) October 22, 2008 JUDGE avin