Sucha vs State of Punjab

Sat Pal, J.

This petition has been filed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (in short, the Code) seeking bail pending trial in the case FIR No. 11 dated 19th January, 1995, registered at Police Station Philaur under section 15 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as the Act).

Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the Police got information on 14th January, 1995 that the petitioner deals in Chura Post business and was having a large quantity of Chura. Pursuant to this information, the FIR was registered and thereafter ASI Hans Raj conducted a raid on the house of the petitioner. It has further been alleged that before conducting the raid on the house of the petitioner, the statement of the petitioner was recorded and in his statement, he admitted that he was having three bags of poppy husk in his house and as a result of his confessional statement, the said three bags were recovered from his house.

Mr. Gill, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, submits that since the police was already having information that the petitioner was having poppy husk in his house, the question of his confessional statement does not arise as the poppy husk could have been recovered as a result of the said information. In support of this submission, he placed reliance on a judgment of this Court in Bhagwan Dass v. State of Haryana (Criminal Revision No. 619 of 1972) 1976 Chandigarh Law Report 156. The learned counsel also submitted that in the present case, there is violation of section 50 of the Act inasmuch as the petitioner was not given an option for search of the house in the presence of a gazetted officer or a Magistrate.

Mr. Garg, learned AAG, Punjab has vehemently opposed the application and submits that as per the information received by the Police, the Police was not aware as to what quantity of poppy husk was available with the petitioner and at what place it was lying, and it was only as a result of his confession that three bags of poppy husk could be recovered. He further submitted that in the present case, section 50 of the Act was not applicable as the poppy husk has not been recovered as a result of the personal search of the petitioner.

I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record. Admittedly, the application for bail has been opposed by the learned counsel for the State. Keeping in view the heavy recovery of the poppy husk, it cannot be said that the petitioner is not likely to commit the offence while on bail. I am, therefore, of the view that it is not a fit case for grant of bail. The view I have taken finds full support from a judgment of the Supreme Court in Narcotics Control Bureau v. Kishan Lal and others, 1991(1) Recent Criminal Reports 338 : JT 1991(1) SC 258 .

Accordingly, the petition is dismissed.