Sat Paul @ Sat Pal vs State of Punjab

MANISHA BATRA, J.:-

The instant one is the second petition filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short ‘BNSS’) by the petitioner seeking grant of regular bail in case bearing FIR No. 239 dated 19.11.2020 registered under Sections 15 and 25 of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short, ‘ NDPS Act’) at Police Station Bhogpur, District Jalandhar. His previous petition had been dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 23.02.2026.

As per the allegations, on 19.11.2020, a secret information was received to the effect that a truck bearing registration No. JK02-AH-0867, which had arrived from Jammu & Kashmir, was loaded with boxes of apples and was driven by one Kabir Mohd. It was also informed that the said truck was lying parked at Badshah Dhaba, Kureshia and the driver Kabir Mohd had taken out a bag containing poppy husk from the truck and the same was handed over to one unknown person travelling on an Activa scooter, who had gone towards Tanda. Believing the secret information to be true, a raiding party was formed which reached at the informed place and found the aforementioned truck parked therein. On conducting search, 20 plastic bags containing 20 kgs of poppy husk, each i.e. total 400 kgs of poppy husk were found to be concealed underneath the boxes of apples. The same along with the truck was taken into possession. Formal FIR was registered. Investigation proceedings were initiated. It was revealed that the truck was registered in the name of the present petitioner who was nominated as an accused on 27.02.2025. Offence under Section 25 of NDPS Act was added. The accused Kabir Mohd. could not be apprehended and was declared proclaimed offender. Prior to that, the petitioner had moved an application for release of the truck in question on supardari, which was dismissed vide order dated 15.11.2023, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jalandhar. The petitioner kept on evading his arrest, consequent to which, proceedings for declaring him a proclaimed offender were initiated. In the meanwhile, he surrendered before the jurisdictional Magistrate on 01.08.2025 and was formally arrested. Investigation qua him now stands concluded.

It is argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that he has been falsely implicated in this case. His antecedents are clean. He had given his truck to driver Kabir Mohd to transport apples from Jammu and Kashmir to Jalandhar. He had no knowledge as to what was being carried by co-accused Kabir Mohd. He was neither accompanying the co-accused nor he was present at the spot. No recovery has been effected from his conscious possession. The accused Kabir Mohd. has been declared a proclaimed offender. He was not nominated as an accused till 07.02.2025. In the year 2023, he had even applied for release of his truck on supardari. His name was added as an accused vide DDR No. 19, dated 27.02.2025, only when the principal accused was declared a proclaimed offender. He has suffered incarceration for a long period. The trial will take considerable time to conclude. His further incarceration would not serve any useful purpose. It is, therefore, argued that he deserves to be extended the benefit of bail.

Per contra, learned State counsel has argued that taking into consideration the gravity of the allegations as levelled against the petitioner, he does not deserve to be released on bail. Therefore, it is stressed that the petition does not deserve to be allowed.

This Court has heard the rival submissions made by learned counsel for the parties at considerable length.

The petitioner is alleged to be the registered owner of the truck from which recovery of commercial quantity of poppy husk, kept in 20 separate bags, was effected. The vehicle at that moment was driven by co-accused Kabir Mohd who has been absconded and has been declared a proclaimed person. It is only on thorough assessment of the evidence to be produced during trial that any definite conclusion as to the petitioner’s being involved in the commission of the subject offences can be drawn. He was not arrested for a period of about five years by the investigating agency and himself surrendered on 01.08.2025. The recovery is not from his conscious possession. Taking into consideration the above-discussed facts, this Court is of the considered opinion that further pre-trial incarceration of the petitioner would not serve any useful purpose. Accordingly, the petition is allowed and the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail subject to his furnishing personal/surety bonds to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court/Chief Judicial Magistrate/ Duty Magistrate concerned.

It is clarified that the observations made above shall not be construed as an expression of opinion of this Court on the merits of the case and shall not influence the outcome of the trial in any manner.

Since the main petition has already been disposed of, pending application, if any, is rendered infructuous.