Ranjit Singh Sarkaria, J. - (1.) THE Petitioner Bhola Singh, has approached this Court through the present Petition seeking bail in FIR No. 30, dated 27.3.2007, under Sections 15/61/85 of NDPS Act registered at Police Station Dehlon, District Jagraon.
(2.) NOTICE of motion was issued in this case on 18.10.2007 on the basis of submission made by counsel for the Petitioner that the Petitioner was neither arrested at the spot nor otherwise was connected with the recovery. It was pleaded that the Petitioner was involved only on the basis of a secret information. When the case came up for hearing on 28.11.2007, this Court expressed concern at the state of affairs in the following manner: This case reflects a sorry state of affairs. The Petitioner has been arrested on the basis that his name has been disclosed in a secret information furnished to the police. On repeated queries the Investigating Officer who has come to assist the State counsel, could not disclose any fact which may have revealed during investigation. It is only being stated that the Petitioner's name is given in the secret information. This is not enough to detain a person under serious offence under the NDPS Act. Without saying anything on merits, bail to the satisfaction of CJM, Ludhiana. This state of affair cannot be accepted. Let the source of secret information be disclosed to the Court in a sealed cover to ascertain whether the persons are being involved on some basis or only false implications are being made on the basis of secret information. For this purpose, case is adjourned to 11.12.2007. The Petitioner was released on bail. Even on that day, investigating Officer on repeated inquiries, could not disclose any fact, which had surfaced during investigation. Except for stating that the Petitioner's name is given in the secret information, nothing else could be pointed out against the Petitioner. This Court, accordingly, directed the Respondent -State to disclose the source of secret information in a sealed cover to ascertain if the Petitioner was involved on the basis of some material or it may be a case of false implication.
(3.) ON December 11, 2007, a sealed envelope was handed over in the Court and SI Jaspinder Singh had filed an affidavit disclosing the name of the person, who had given secret information. The envelope was returned to the Investigating Officer and directions were issued to the Respondents to place on record the evidence, which was collected against the Petitioner till then. Thereafter, no action was taken by the State on various occasions. A period of more than 5 years have elapsed but still the investigating officer has not been able to show any evidence, which has been collected against the Petitioner. This Court was constrained to then summon the Commissioner of Police, Ludhiana to disclose the evidence, if any, collected against the Petitioner. The Commissioner Police, Ludhiana, came present on 9.2.2011 and candidly admitted that there is virtually no evidence available against the Petitioner, which has been collected by the investigating agency. He, however, pointed out that in the meantime a charge has been framed against the Petitioner. Since prima facie nature of evidence is only required to be seen at the time of framing of the charge, the trial Court may have thought it fit to frame the charge. The Petitioner has not challenged the order framing the charge in any manner. Even now affidavit has been filed and placed on record stating that virtually there is no evidence collected against the Petitioner.;