Benefit Of Acquittal Can Be Extended To Non-Appealing Co-Accused If Prosecution Case Is Found To Be Fundamentally Unreliable: Madras High Court Hindu Marriage Act | Petition For Restitution Of Conjugal Rights Serves As A Valid Defence Against Allegations Of Desertion: Kerala High Court Employee Has No Vested Right To Seek Or Retain Additional Charge; Writ Petition Not Maintainable To Challenge Its Withdrawal: Madhya Pradesh High Court Insurance Act | Insurer Cannot Waive Statutory Deadline For Premium Payment Under Bank Guarantee; No Estoppel Against Statute: NCDRC Absence Of Crime Number In Inquest Report & Discrepancy In Sec 157 CrPC Special Report Renders FIR Doubtful: Allahabad High Court MTP Act  | Termination Of Pregnancy Beyond 24 Weeks Permissible If It Involves Risk To Life Or Grave Injury To Mental Health Of The Victim: Gujarat High Court Section 174A IPC | FIR Cannot Be Quashed If Process Server Reports Indicate Failure To Serve At Ordinary Residence: Delhi High Court Issues Guidelines Insolvency Petition | Transferees Of Debtor Cannot Substitute Debtor To Rebut Allegation Of Intent To Defeat Creditors Under Section 6(b) Provincial Insolvency Act: High Court Medical Negligence | Doctor Cannot Be Held Liable For Choosing One Reasonable Course Of Treatment Over Another: Bombay High Court Cruelty | Non-Registration Of FIR Cannot Be Ground To Discredit Testimony Of Wife Seeking Divorce: Jharkhand High Court No Deception At Inception: Calcutta High Court Refuses To Revive Cheating Charges Against Borrower After One-Time Settlement Consumer Protection Act | Doctrine Of 'Caveat Emptor' Subservient To 'Caveat Venditor'; Auctioneer Liable For Sale Of Encumbered Vehicle: State Commission Section 127 CrPC | Past Compromise Not An Eternal Estoppel To Bar Wife From Seeking Enhancement In Maintenance: Orissa High Court States Can Prescribe Higher Qualifications Than UGC Norms, Additional Tests Promote Meritocracy: Punjab & Haryana High Court Writ Jurisdiction Cannot Be Invoked To Cancel Registered Sale Deed Or Adjudicate Title Disputes: Telangana High Court Principal Employer Cannot Abdicate Statutory Liability For Overtime Wages Of Contract Labour Despite Contractual Indemnity Clauses: Jammu & Kashmir High Court Preliminary Inquiry Not Mandatory For Invoking SC/ST Act Provisions If Allegations Disclose Cognizable Offence: Punjab & Haryana High Court Writ Jurisdiction Cannot Be Invoked For Re-valuation Of Structures Once Compensation Dispute Is Adjudicated Under Section 64 RFCTLARR Act: Telangana High Court Revenue Village Naming | Government Must Ensure Names Do Not Reflect Any Person, Caste, Or Religion Under Policy Guidelines: Rajasthan High Court Section 138 NI Act | Complainant Must Prove Proprietorship Of Firm To Establish Status As 'Payee' Or 'Holder In Due Course': Himachal Pradesh High Court

Bail to D.S.P of Punjab Police in drug trafficking case – P&H HC

07 May 2024 2:49 AM

By: Admin


On 6 Feb 2023, P&H High Court granted bail, in case titled Lakhbir Singh vs State, to D.S.P of Punjab Police in drug trafficking case.

Three petitions seeking grant of regular bail have been filed on behalf of Lakhbir Singh, Surjit Singh, and Pishora Singh in a case registered against them under Section 18 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, along with Sections 29 and 59 of the NDPS Act and Sections 7, 7(a), and 8(1) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 at Police Station Bhikhiwind, District Tarn Taran.

Surjit Singh found in possession of 900 grams of 'opium' on 30.6.2022 leading to the lodging of FIR No. 62 on the same date.Surjit Singh discloses during custodial interrogation on 2.7.2022 that he used to purchase 'opium' from Pishora Singh, who is apprehended on 3.7.2022, with 250 grams of 'opium' recovered from him. Pishora Singh discloses that he had paid Rs. 10 lacs to co-accused Hira Singh to avoid being nominated as an accused in the case and that the amount was concealed in a box of a bed in Hira Singh's house. Though Hira Singh was not arrested, Rs. 9.97 lacs were recovered from his house on the same day. Pishora Singh makes another disclosure on 5.7.2022 that he contacted petitioner DSP Lakhbir Singh through Nishan Singh to avoid being nominated as an accused in the case. He reveals that a deal was settled for Rs. 10 lacs and that he had paid the amount recovered from Hira Singh's house. Lakhbir Singh, Nishan Singh, and Hira Singh were also nominated as accused on 6.7.2022 vide G.D. No. 22. Lakhbir Singh and Hira Singh were arrested on 6.7.2022 and 7.7.2022, respectively.

Petitioner Surjit Singh argues that he has been falsely implicated and that even if the allegations in the FIR are true, only 900 grams of 'opium' can be attributed to him, which is a non-commercial quantity. Therefore, he should be granted bail as he is not involved in any other case.

Petitioner Pishora Singh argues that the 250 grams of 'opium' and the Rs. 1 lakh attributed to him cannot be considered drug money. Additionally, the Rs. 9.97 lakh allegedly recovered at his instance was found at Hira Singh's house and not his, and Hira Singh has already been granted bail. Hence, Pishora Singh should be granted bail as well.

Petitioner DSP Lakhbir Singh claims that he is a victim of departmental jealousies and that there is no evidence to connect him with the drug-peddling allegations other than the disclosure statements that some money was to be paid to him. He also points out that he is not involved in any other case except for one other case that came up after the present FIR.

The state opposed the bail on the grounds that the drug peddling racket was being carried out with the help of petitioner DSP Lakhbir Singh's protection, for which he was supposed to receive money. The amount of Rs. 9.97 lacs were recovered from the house of co-accused Hira Singh, which was supposed to be paid to petitioner Lakhbir Singh, indicating his complicity. The police have also retrieved some audio recordings from Hira Singh's mobile phone, which includes a conversation between him and Lakhbir Singh regarding passing on money, suggesting their involvement in the case.

The High Court has granted bail to all three petitioners, Lakhbir Singh, Surjit Singh, and Pishora Singh, who were accused in a drug trafficking case. The court observed that the recovery of contraband from Surjit and Pishora substantiates the allegations against them, but since the recovered amount was non-commercial, they deserve the concession of bail. Lakhbir Singh was accused based on a disclosure statement made by Pishora Singh, which mentioned an amount of Rs. 10 lacs that was to be paid to Lakhbir Singh. However, since no money was recovered from him and he has been in jail for seven months without charges being framed, the court held that he is entitled to the concession of bail. The court clarified that the observations made are only for the purpose of considering bail and are not an expression of the petitioners' innocence.

Lakhbir Singh Vs State of Punjab 

Latest Legal News