Labushwar vs State of Haryana

K.S. Kumaran, J. (Oral)

Heard counsel.

Learned counsel for the petitioners contends that even as per the allegations in the FIR, only a joint offer was made and such a joint offer has been held to be invalid in Paramjit v. State of Punjab, 1997(1) RCR 294. He also contends that from the FIR, it is not clear as to who was in possession and, therefore, unless the petitioners are shown to be in conscious possession of the contraband, they may not be liable on that ground also. The third contention taken by the counsel for the petitioners is that as per the FIR, the police party had secret information and yet the same had not been reduced to writing. In this regard, he relied upon the decision Lamin Bojang v. State of Haryana, 1997(2) RCR 294. Although the learned counsel for the petitioners also raised two other pleas that no independent witness was associated and that the challan had been presented after 90 days though the application for bail was pending, it is not necessary for me to go into these two latter contentions.

But without meaning to express any opinion on the merits of the case, the petitioners are ordered to be released on bail on their furnishing sufficient surety to the satisfaction of CJM, Panipat.