SURJIT SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a first petition under Sec. 439 Cr.P.C. for grant of regular bail in FIR No.239 dtd. 15/11/2017, registered under Ss. 15/25/29/61/85 of the Narcotic Drugs & Psychotropic Substances Act, at Police Station Bagha Purana, District Moga.

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that in the present case, the petitioner has been in custody since 31/7/2019 and there are total 15 prosecution witnesses, out of which, nine are yet to be examined and thus, the trial is likely to take time. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that secret information was received, in which, the petitioner along with five other persons had been named, but the petitioner was not apprehended at the spot nor any recovery has been effected from him. It is also submitted that even the alleged recovery has been effected from a truck, which was being driven by one Harjit Singh and as per the secret information, the petitioner was not in the said truck and was allegedly in a Scorpio car. It is argued that co-accused Harjit Singh had implicated the present petitioner in the case, but even after the arrest of the petitioner, no recovery has been effected from him. It is further submitted that other than the disclosure statement and the secret information, there is no incriminating evidence against the present petitioner and thus, has relied upon the judgment of Supreme Court in case titled as "Tofan Singh vs. State of Tamil Nadu" reported as 2021(4) SCC 1 and judgment passed in CRM-M-12051-2020, by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court dtd. 17/6/2020 titled as "Mewa Singh Vs. State of Punjab" and the judgment passed in CRM-M-12997-2020 titled as "Daljit Singh Vs. State of Haryana", to contend that merely on the basis of the disclosure statement, the petitioner cannot be denied the benefit of regular bail.

(3.) Learned State counsel, on the other hand, has opposed the present petition for regular bail and has submitted that in the present case, the petitioner was declared proclaimed offender and he was arrested after a lapse of 1½ years. It is further submitted that petitioner is involved in two other cases and the recovery in the present case is of 1180 Kgs of poppy husk, which is a commercial quantity and thus, the bar under Sec. 37 of the NDPS Act would apply.