[Cites 4, Cited by 0]
Punjab-Haryana High Court
Shawar Lal vs State Of Punjab on 23 April, 2026
CRM-M-12165-2026 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
223 CRM-M-12165-2026
Date of decision: 23.04.2026
SHAWAR LAL
......PETITIONER
Versus
STATE OF PUNJAB
. ..... RESPONDENT
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURYA PARTAP SINGH
Present: Mr. Chiran Sharma, Advocate for
Mr. Vikramjeet Singh, Advocate
for the petitioner.
Mr. J.S. Thind, DAG, Punjab.
*****
SURYA PARTAP SINGH, J.
1. This petition for bail is the first petition, filed by the petitioner
under Section 483 of 'the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023'. This
petition has been filed with regard to a case arising out of FIR No.167 dated
06.07.2025, for the commission of offence punishable under Sections 15(c),
27, 29 of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, Police
Station Canal Colony, District Bathinda.
2. Briefly stating the facts emerging from record are that the FIR of
this case came into being at the instance of Sub Inspector Rajvir Singh. It was
reported by the above-named police officer that on 06.07.2025 he was leading
a team of police officials, and was present at Badal Over Bridge Nanni Chhan
Chowk, Bathinda. As per above-named police officer there another police
party headed by Head Constable Inderjit Singh met him and when they were
on joint patrolling duty, at about 1:05 P.M. near Ring road T-point they spotted
a truck/Tralla parked under the bridge. As per above-named police officer
three persons standing near the truck were managing the tarpaulin, fixed on the
truck. According to above-named police officer when the above-said three
persons noticed the presence of police party near them, they behaved
abnormally, and therefore, on the basis of suspicion they were apprehended.
3. It is the case of the prosecution that when the search of the truck
was carried out nine quintal of poppy husk was recovered. According to
prosecution, pursuant to recovery of above-mentioned contraband, requisite
formalities with regard to seizure and sealing of contraband, formal arrest of
the accused and filing of FIR were completed and further investigation taken
up.
4. Heard.
5. It has been contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that in
the present case the petitioner has already suffered a prolonged incarceration
for being in custody for a period of nine months. According to learned counsel
for the petitioner one of the important fact to be taken into consideration in the
present case, is that the prosecution story in itself shows that the petitioner was
not in conscious and actual physical possession of the contraband. According
to learned counsel for the petitioner unnatural story has been setout by the
prosecution by alleging that the petitioner and his co-accused were managing
the tarpaulin fixed on the truck/trolla. As per learned counsel for the petitioner
the above-mentioned act of the petitioner by any standard does not amount to
conscious possession of contraband. It has also been contended by learned
counsel for the petitioner that otherwise also the petitioner has clean
antecedents and the trial is not likely to be concluded in near future.
6. The learned State counsel has controverted the above-mentioned
arguments. According to learned State counsel in the present case the recovery
of contraband is from the truck and the petitioner is the registered owner of the
above-mentioned truck, As per learned State counsel in view of above, the
link between the commission of crime and the petitioner stands established.
The learned State counsel has further contended that in the present case the
recovery of contraband comes within the ambit of commercial quantity, and
therefore, without satisfying the rigors enshrined under Section 37 of NDPS
Act, the benefit of bail cannot be afforded to the petitioner.
7. The record has been perused carefully.
8. A perusal of record shows that in the present case there are very
specific and categorical allegations against the petitioner that he alongwith his
co-accused was present on the spot, i.e. near the truck, and he was managing
the tarpaulin fixed on the above-mentioned truck. It is also relevant to note that
at the very first instance when the FIR, in this case, was lodged there is a very
specific recital in the FIR that the petitioner and his co-accused, when spotted
the police party, tried to hide themselves by taking shelter of the trucks. The
above-mentioned action of the petitioner and his co-accused prima faice shows
that the petitioner was very well aware of the presence of contraband on the
truck.
9. In addition to above, it is also relevant to mention here that in the
present case, there are allegations with regard to recovery of commercial
quantity of contraband from the possession of petitioner, and there is nothing
on record to show that rigors of Section 37 of NDPS Act stands complied with,
in any manner, whatsoever, in the present case.
10. In addition to above, it is also relevant to mention here that the
total custody period of the petitioner is not even 10 months and such a period
cannot be treated to be a period which may lead to an inference that there is
delay in trial, violating the fundamental rights of speedy trial, guaranteed to the
petitioner.
11. Taking into consideration the cumulative effect of all the above-
discussed factors, it is hereby observed that at this stage the petitioner is not
entitled for the benefit of bail and the present petition deserves dismissal.
Hence, the present petition is hereby dismissed accordingly.
(SURYA PARTAP SINGH)
JUDGE
23.04.2026
vipin Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No
Whether reportable Yes/No
