Criminal Appeal No. 45330 of 2012 · Punjab & Haryana High Court

CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAM CHAND GUPTA Present: Mr.Akashdeep Singh Advocate for the petitioner. ..... RAM CHAND GUPTA, J.(Oral) Crl.M.No.45330 of 2012 Application is allowed subject to all just exceptions. Crl.M.No.M-23469 of 2012 The present petition filed under Section 438 Cr.P.C. is for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner in case FIR No.190, dated 12.5.2011, under Sections 18, 25, 27A and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, registered at Police Station Ratia, District Fatehabad, Haryana. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and have gone through the whole record carefully, including the impugned order passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fatehabad, vide which application filed on behalf of the present petitioner for anticipatory bail was dismissed. Brief allegations against petitioner-accused are that there was secret information with the police that a large quantity of opium is being brought in a maruti van bearing registration No.RJ06UA-3910 towards Crl.M.No.M-23469 of 2012(O&M) -2- village Alika from Rajasthan.

On this information, a raiding party was formed and the said vehicle was seen coming from the side of village Nagpur. The vehicle was given signal to stop and, however, driver of the van tried to take U' turn. The van was overpowered, which was being occupied by three persons including the driver. The driver disclosed his name as Satyanarain s/o Ratan Lal. The other co-accused were Ratangiri and Ramesh Kumar alias Kala. On search, a bag was recovered from the said vehicle containing 6 kg of opium, which was taken into possession. It came during enquiry that present petitioner-accused was registered owner of the said vehicle on the date of alleged occurrence. He had also moved an application before learned trial Court for taking the said vehicle on superdari and the same was given to him on superdari by learned trial court. It has been contended by learned counsel for the petitioner- accused that petitioner had already handed over possession of the vehicle to one Ladhu Lal vide affidavit, Annexure P2, on 15.3.2011 and, however, the said Ladhu Lal did not make payment of installments to the finance company and hence, he had taken the vehicle on superdari.

It is further submitted that initially the Investigating Officer after believing affidavit, Annexure P2, had made Ladhu Lal only a co-accused and not the present petitioner and, however, the present petitioner was made co-accused when he had taken the vehicle on superdari. However, even co-accused Ladhu Lal is absconding. It is a matter of investigation as to who was having effective control of the vehicle on the day of occurrence. Admittedly, petitioner was registered owner of the vehicle on that day. Genuineness of affidavit, Annexure P2, is also to be Crl.M.No.M-23469 of 2012(O&M) -3- investigated. Hence, in view of the fact that vehicle owned by petitioner- accused was used for carrying such a large quantity of opium, it is not such a case in which extraordinary relief of anticipatory bail should be granted to the petitioner-accused. Rather custodial interrogation of the petitioner- accused is necessary. Without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the present petition filed by petitioner-Rameshwar Lal for grant of anticipatory bail is, hereby, dismissed being devoid of any merit.

8.8.2012 (Ram Chand Gupta) Judge