M.L.SINGHAL, J. - (1.) HEARD . The prosecution case in brief is that on 2.4.2000, SI/SHO PS Dayalpura Gurdeep Singh was present at bus stand Dayalpura in Government Canter No. PB-03-9203 being driven by constable Gurinder Singh 789. At that time, ASI Gurdev Singh, HC Jugraj Singh, HC Jeet Singh, etc. were also with him. Mehar Singh son of Mehnga Singh r/o Dayalpura Bhaika met them. He was also included in the police party. Police party headed by SI Gurdeep Singh laid naka on kacha Rasta (Gumti Pagta) in the revenue limits of village Hamir Garh Chowk. At about 5.30 A.M., one heavy vehicle was seen coming from the side of Hamir Garh. Its lights were on. Torch was flashed at the vehicle for stopping it. It was truck No. PB-10Q-9856. Its driver disclosed his name as Darshan Singh son of Guljar Singh r/o Khanna. The other person sitting with him disclosed his name as Jit Singh son of Gulzar Singh r/o Khanna. Jit Singh son of Gulzar Singh also disclosed that he was owner of the truck. When SI Gurdeep Singh went to the rear side of the truck to see what was loaded in it, driver of the truck and Jit Singh jumped out of the truck and ran away. ASI went to the rear side of the truck and in the torch light found some jute bags lying there and two persons sitting on them. ASI Gurdev Singh asked them their names and they disclosed that they are Mohinder Singh son of Gagar Singh r/o Kotha Guru and Balwant Singh son of Jeet Singh Ramdasia r/o village Madira PS Bagha Purana. ASI Gurdev Singh told Mohinder Singh and Balwant Singh that the truck was loaded with jute bags containing poppy husk and they were to search the jute bags and if they wanted Gazetted Officer or Magistrate could be called at the spot and in his presence the jute bags could be searched. Both of them stated that some Gazetted Officer be called at the spot and in his presence the jute bags be searched. Wireless message was flashed. Surjit Singh Khosa, DSP, Rampura Phool came to the spot. Shri Surjit Singh Khosa told Mohinder Singh and Balwant Singh that he was DSP and was a gazetted officer and the truck loaded with jute bags was to be searched as some narcotic substance was suspected to be in the jute bags and they had legal right to have the jute bags to be searched in the presence of some Magistrate or some gazetted officer. Mohinder Singh and Balwant Singh replied separately that they were prepared to get the jute bags searched in his presence. Jute bags were 20 in number. They were opened. They were found full of poppy husk. Each bag was found to contain 35 jute kgs. of poppy husk.
(2.) THROUGH this Crl. Misc. application, Mohinder Singh and Balwant Singh have prayed for the grant of bail to them. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that this was absolutely a false case engineered by the police. As per the prosecution case, truck was being driven by one who disclosed his name as Darshan Singh son of Guljar Singh of Khanna and the other person alleged to have been sitting with him disclosed his name as Jit Singh son of Guljar Singh r/o Khanna. As per the prosecution, Darshan Singh and Jit Singh ran away and could not be apprehended. It happened on 2.4.2000 at 5.30 A.M. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that Jit Singh son of Guljar Singh was never on this truck on 2.4.2000 at 5.30 A.M. as he was in custody at Central Jail, Bhatinda in connection with case FIR No. 143 dated 10.11.1999 under Section 18 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act of PS Sadar Khanna as per certificate Annexure P-4, issued by the Superintendent Central Jail, Bhatinda. It was submitted that if Jit Singh son of Guljar Singh was in custody in case FIR No. 118 (ibid), how could he be intercepted in this truck on 2.4.2000 at 5.30 A.M. I do not see any reason to allow bail to Mohinder Singh and Balwant Singh because of the bar created by Section 37 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, which reads thus :- "37. Offences to be cognizable and non-bailable - (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - (a) every offence punishable under this Act shall be cognizable; (b) no person accused of an offence punishable for a term of imprisonment of five years or more under this Act shall be released on bail or on his own bond unless - (i) the Public Prosecutor has been given an opportunity to oppose the application for such release, and (ii) where the Public Prosecutor opposes the application, the Court is satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for believing that he is not guilty of such offence and that he is not likely to commit any offence while on bail. (2) The limitations on granting of bail specified in clause (b) of sub-section (1) are in addition to the limitations under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 or any other law for the time being in force, on granting of bail.
(3.) SO far as the merits of the case are concerned, they can be appreciated only at the trial. No merit. Dismissed. Petition dismissed.;