High Court Punjab-Haryana High Court

Rakesh Kumar vs State Of Punjab on 5 September, 2009

Punjab-Haryana High Court
Rakesh Kumar vs State Of Punjab on 5 September, 2009
 CRM No. M-24835 of 2009                                1



    IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB &
              HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH.

                                CRM No. M-24835 of 2009 (O&M)
                                Date of decision: 5.9.2009

Rakesh Kumar                                        ...Petitioner

                            Versus

State of Punjab                                     ...Respondent


CORAM:      HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJAN GUPTA

Present:    Mr. S.S. Goraya, Advocate, for the petitioners


Rajan Gupta, J.

The petitioner has preferred this petition for regular bail in

a case registered against him under Sections 21/61/85 of the Narcotic

Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to be

as “the Act”) at Police Station Division No.1, Pathankot, vide FIR

No.31 dated 30th April, 2009.

The allegation in the FIR is that on 30th April, 2009, when

the petitioner was stopped by police party near Khari bridge in

Pathankot, he was found to be carrying a heavy polythene bag in his

right hand. On seeing the police party, he got scared and tried to turn

back. The police, however, searched the bag and found 920 grams of

intoxicating powder therein. Thus, a case under Section 21/61/85 of the

Act was registered.

The petitioner had applied for bail before the Special Judge,

Gurdaspur. However, the same was rejected.
CRM No. M-24835 of 2009 2

Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the

petitioner has been falsely implicated in the case and there is non-

compliance of Section 50 of the Act.

I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and given

careful thought to the facts of the case.

The contention regarding false implication and non-

compliance of Section 50 of the Act can only be subject matter of trial.

In view of the fact that quantity recovered from the petitioner is

commercial in nature, Section 37 of the Act would be attracted to the

case.

I, thus, find no ground to enlarge the petitioner on bail. The

petition is hereby dismissed.

(RAJAN GUPTA)
JUDGE
September 05, 2009
‘rajpal’