Pak ‘Enemy Nation’, no bail to drug suspect: High Court

The Punjab & Haryana HC has described Pakistan as “enemy nation” before denying bail to a 78-year-old man arrested on the basis of suspicion in a case revolving around cross-border smuggling of narcotics.

While smugglers from both Pakistan & Indian side succeeded in fleeing after resorting to firing, the accused was arrested more than a year after the First Information Report (FIR)’s registration & has been in custody since Nov 2018.

 “This court is not inclined to grant concession of regular bail to the petitioner, keeping in view the heavy recovery of narcotics near the fencing of Indian border, adjoining enemy nation Pakistan,” Justice Ramendra Jain asserted, while dismissing the bail plea.

The matter was brought to the court’s notice after Ajit Singh alias Jita filed a petition against the state for grant of regular bail in a case registered on Mar 23, 2015, for attempt to murder under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code, provisions of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, Arms Act & The Foreigners Act in Amritsar.

 The prosecution had claimed that the BSF in the early hours of Mar 23, 2015, noticed movement of four-five persons on the border. On being challenged, the smugglers from Pakistan area managed to escape after counter firing. Simultaneously, smugglers from the Indian side also fired & succeeded in fleeing. In a search operation, 18 packets containing heroin, weighing 17.828 kg, a pistol & 10 live cartridges were recovered.

 The petitioner, arrested on the basis of suspicion, made a disclosure before the investigating officer on his interrogation & admitted to his complicity in the crime.

 The petitioner’s counsel, on the other hand, contended that he was falsely implicated on the basis of extra judicial confession before one Karamjit Singh, who informed the police after four months. As on date, there was no evidence about his involvement in the crime. He could not even move without help & was arrested one year & two months after the registration of First Information Report (FIR).

 The state counsel, on the other hand, contended that huge recovery was made from the spot. It was a case of international drug smuggling & the quantity was “commercial”. The trial, too, was going to be concluded shortly as only eight witnesses remained un-examined.

Source Link