The Punjab and Haryana HC was dealing with the petition filed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for grant of regular bail in FIR for offence punishable under Sections 21, 25, 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act.
As per the allegations in the FIR, on receiving the secret information that the petitioner is indulged in selling Heroin and has appointed co-accused Vijay Kumar, to sell the Heroin to his customers. On receiving the said information, the investigation was conducted and the co-accused of the petitioner were apprehended and 360 gms of Heroin was affected from them.
The counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner was not present at the spot and therefore, he was not arrested. It was further submitted that though the petitioner was named in the secret information, however, nothing was recovered from him as he was not even present at the spot and at the relevant time when the raid was conducted, the petitioner was in judicial custody in FIR under Section 379 IPC, and he was taken on production warrant in the present FIR and nominated as an accused in the case.
Counsel for the petitioner has, thus, submitted that the petitioner, though involved in one FIR under Section 379 IPC and in one FIR under Section 61 of the Excise Act and Section 420 IPC, is not involved in any other case under the NDPS Act and even in the present case except on his nomination on the basis of the secret information, no recovery was affected from him.
The learned counsel for the state has submitted that during the investigation, it was found that the co-accused as well as the petitioner were talking to each other on their respective mobile phones and therefore, the evidence has come that they were doing the business together and thus, opposed the prayer for bail.
HC after considering the fact that the petitioner is not involved in any other case under the NDPS Act previously and he is nominated in this case while in judicial custody in some other case. Also, no recovery was affected from the petitioner even after his arrest in the present case and the investigation is complete and conclusion of the trial is likely to take some time, HC allowed the petition.
Bench: Hon'ble Mr Justice Arvind Singh Sangwan
Case Title: Shishank @ Sushant Kumar @ Shanky v. State of Punjab
Case Details: CRM-M No.38095 of 2021
Read Judgment @Latestlaws.com
Picture Source :
