Paridhi Arya
Published on June 9, 2022 at 21:01 IST
The Single Judge Bench of Justice Jasjit Singh Bedi held that from mere pendency of FIR against the accused it cannot be assumed that in future accused will commit the crime while considering bail.
The Petition was filed by Gurjant Singh and Varinder. They were arrested by the police in the offence under NDPS Act. When their car was stopped by Punjab Police 3 kg opium was confiscated from the car.
Baljeet Singh Kathuria representing Petitioners submitted that the secret information was not given to senior after writing it within 72 hours as per Section 42 of NDPS Act.
The amount of opium confiscated is 3 kg that too with polythene is lightly more than allowed quantity for non-commercial purpose.
There is also a procedural defect as ASI who provided this secret information had only performed the search and seizure which is expressly denied by the Supreme Court and so the bail should be granted to the petitioner.
The Counsel representing state argued against the bail by submitting that the ruqa ( means that the confiscated material was put into the parcel and sealed) under Section 42 of NDPS Act was sent to senior and Petitioners were consciously possessing the opium.
The Bench observed that State is unable to show the compliance of Section 42 of NDPS Act and under Section 37 of NDPS Act the bail can be granted on two grounds first is accused is not guilty of offence that can be recorded as the Petitioner established violation of law.
Second, is that in future accused will not do the offence this can only be predicted because no one can be sure that what will happen in future.
This prediction is made by the past record and in such situation pending FIR against accused cannot lead to any assumption that accused will do the offence in future also.
The Court granted bail to the Petitioners as they do not have any criminal record so it can be apprehended that they will not commit any offence in future.