HC expresses concern over the rising drug menace, 'destroying the lives' of citizens, denied alleged drug peddler's pre-arrest bail plea

The High Court of Punjab and Haryana on Monday expressing concern over the rising drug menace in the state, which is ultimately "destroying the lives" of its citizens denied the alleged drug peddler's pre-arrest bail plea.

The Present petition has been filed under Section 438 Cr.P.C for the grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner in respect of FIR No.539 dated 22.12.2019 under Section 20 (b) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 registered at Police Station Rewari City, District Rewari.

Learned counsel for the petitioner argues that the petitioner has been roped in the present case on the basis of the statement of the co-accused, from whom, the alleged recovery was done. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has wrongly been roped in the present case as the petitioner is innocent and no banned substance was ever sold by the petitioner to the co-accused, which was recovered from the said co-accused. The prayer of the petitioner is that she is being falsely implicated in the present case and therefore, she is granted the benefit of anticipatory bail.

Learned counsel for the respondent-State submits that recovery of 520 grams and 40 milligrams of the contraband was done from co-accused Rahul @ Lala. Rahul @ Lala has named the petitioner by stating that the said contraband was purchased by him from the petitioner and therefore, the custodial interrogation of the petitioner is necessary to unearth the truth from where the petitioner was getting the contraband and who were the other recipients, to whom the petitioner was selling the same.

The Bench observed,

" The lives of the citizens are being destroyed due to the selling of these banned substances. There is an alarming spike in the number of people buying and selling these contraband in the country, which needs to be controlled in an effective manner so as to minimize the said offence, if not to eradicate."

Stating that the custodial interrogation of the Petitioner is necessary "for effective interrogation", especially for the violation of the NDPS Act, the Court denied her request for pre-arrest bail.

The Bench emphasized,

"Once, the allegations have been alleged against the petitioner with regard to the selling of the banned substance, which was recovered from the co-accused, the police has to unearth the total facts as to how the petitioner got the said substance in her possession and further whether there were other people as well to whom the petitioner was selling the same or not."

"The role of operators, who are working from behind the scene, also needs to be brought out as they are the actual offenders and for that purpose custodial interrogation of the petitioner is a must."