E-Paper
HC grants bail to drug accused as cops play truant in trial proceedings
The accused was booked in a durgs seizure case registered at police station Asauda in Jhajjar on June 4, 2021. He is behind bars for one-and-a-half year now. The Punjab and Haryana HC has granted bail to a drug accused who is from Jhajjar in Haryana
The Punjab and Haryana high court has granted bail to a drug accused from Jhajjar in Haryana as cops who had to depose in the case were not appearing before the trial court to depose as witnesses.
“The criminal law was set into motion by the police authorities, especially the complainant (investigating officer), but there is no justification coming forth as to why despite repeated summons, bailable warrants and warrants of arrest being issued to him, he did not appear and depose before the trial court,” the bench of justice JS Puri observed while granting the bail despite the bar under Section 37 of CrPC.
The SC while dealing with Section 37 of the NDPS Act had held that before granting bail, the court has to have “reasonable grounds” for believing that accused is not guilty of offence that he has been charged and that he is unlikely to commit offence under NDPS Act while on bail again. The second condition is of granting opportunity to public prosecutor to oppose the bail.
The accused, Suresh Narang was booked in a durgs seizure case registered at police station Asauda in Jhajjar on June 4, 2021. He is behind bars for one-and-a-half year now. The allegations were that while he and a co-accused were in a car, a recovery of 4.4 kg of opium was made from a seat of the car.
The petitioner had claimed that he was implicated in the case and neither the car belonged to him nor it was found from his possession. Charges were framed in November 2021 and despite repeated adjournments by the trial court and even after bailable warrants issued against the IO, Ashwani Kumar, he did not appear. The petitioner had argued that since November 2021, not even a single prosecution witness has been examined. The CDR was also sought to be preserved by the petitioner claiming that he was not even present at the spot from where he has been shown arrested.
The government counsel had submitted that since the quantity recovered in the present case was a commercial quantity, the petitioner can’t be released on bail.
The court, however, observed that it is clear that the investigating officer has not appeared before the trial court despite warrants of arrest and due to this the petitioner had to remain in jail.
“..there is no justification coming forthwith as to what prevented the investigating officer and as to whether it was beyond his control to appear or not,” it said, adding that in view of this the court would draw an “adverse inference” against the state and has prima facie reasons to believe that the petitioner is “not guilty” of the offence. The court also took note of the fact that CDR reports have been submitted in court and despite that the IO had not appeared.
Another thing which weighed on the mind of the court was that there are eight members in petitioner’s family -- father is 100% visually disabled, 71 years mother is bed-ridden, son met with an accident and had broken both the legs.
Taking note of circumstances and facts of the case, the court also invoked Article 21 of the Constitution of India, which talks of life and personal liberty of each and every individual and observed that bar under Section 37 of NDPS Act would not attract in the given case.
