On 6th October 2020, the High Court of Jammu & Kashmir in the case of Surjeet Singh V. Union Territory of J&K comprising of a single Bench of Justice Rajnesh Oswal held that Straw and the said contraband falls within the category of the intermediate category, therefore, rigors of section 37 shall not apply. Straw and the said contraband falls within the category of the intermediate category, therefore, rigors of section 37 shall not apply.
Factual Background
The applicant is seeking bail for the commission of offences u/s 8 and 15 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short the NDPS Act). The applicant earlier also had filed a bail application but as the challan was filed during the pendency of said bail application, the applicant was granted liberty to approach the trial court for grant of bail and the said bail application was disposed of accordingly. Thereafter, the applicant approached the trial court, however, the learned Sessions Judge dismissed the said application. After the dismissal of the bail application by the trial Court, the present application has been filed by the applicant.
The allegations against the applicant are that, during checking at National Highway, Samba signal was given to one Gas Tanker that was coming from Srinagar towards Samba but the said Tanker did not stop at the said Naka and then Head Constable Pawan Kumar along with other police officials chased the said Tanker and stopped the said Tanker at some distance from Naka point. During checking of the said Tanker and on suspicion, the police called one tyre mechanic, namely, Vijay Singh on the spot, and the spare tyre was opened by the said mechanic.13 polythene bags having approximately one kg of Poppy Straw each was recovered from the tyre. The total recovery that was effected from the applicant was approximately 13 kg of Poppy Straw. It is submitted in the bail application that a false and frivolous FIR was registered against the applicant as the applicant has not committed any offence and also that the applicant is a sole bread earner of the family and also that the trial has not commenced because of the limited functioning of the courts.
The respondent was put to notice and detailed objections stand filed. The respondent has mainly objected the bail application on the ground that the offence so committed is very heinous and is against the society and the menace of drug abuse, drug addiction, and drug trafficking has touched the alarming situation in the society so the applicant does not deserve to be enlarged on bail.
Submissions on behalf of the Appellant
The learned counsel for the applicant has vehemently argued that the contraband allegedly recovered from the applicant falls within the intermediate quantity and he has been in the custody for the last many months and more so, as the challan stands filed against the applicant the presence of the applicant is not required during the investigation but only for the purpose of the trial.
Submissions on behalf of the respondent
Per contra, the learned Dy. A.G has argued that the applicant is involved in the commission of a heinous offence so he is not entitled to bail particularly in view of the rising menace of drug addiction and trafficking. As also the applicant is a resident of Punjab so there is every likelihood of the applicant jumping over the bail.
Court Analysis
This is not in dispute that the quantity of alleged contraband is 13 kg of Poppy Straw and the said contraband falls within the category of the intermediate category, therefore, rigors of section 37 shall not apply. The challan is sub-judice before the learned Sessions Judge, Samba but the proceedings have not commenced because of the restricted functioning of the courts and also the conclusion of the trial is not possible in near future. The presence of the applicant is required only during the trial. The respondent has not placed anything on the record that the applicant is a habitual offender and is involved in similar types of offences. The allegations against the applicant are subject to proof during the trial. So far as the contention of learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant is an outsider, that can be taken care of by directing the applicant to produce two solvent sureties for securing his presence during the trial and also he shall inform the concerned SHO about his location on the very first date of every month 8. Taking into consideration that the quantity of the contraband falls within the category of intermediate quantity and also the prosecution has yet to lead evidence and there is no likelihood of completion of trial in near future, this Court is of the considered opinion that the applicant deserves to be enlarged on bail.
Judgment
For all that has been discussed above, this application is allowed.
The applicant is enlarged on bail on the following conditions:
(i) subject to furnishing of two local solvent sureties to the tune of Rs. 50,000/- each to the satisfaction of the trial court.
(ii) he shall furnish an undertaking that he shall intimate his whereabouts to the concerned SHO on the 1st day of every month.
(iii) he shall not contact any of the prosecution witnesses during the trial and shall regularly appear before the trial court.
In the event of a violation of any of the conditions mentioned above, the respondent can lay a motion for cancellation of bail of the applicant before the trial court.
Disposed of accordingly.
Read Judgment @Latestlaws.com
Share this Document :Picture Source :
