Renewal Is Not Extension Unless Terms Are Fixed in Same Deed: Bombay High Court Strikes Down ₹64.75 Lakh Stamp Duty Demand on Nine-Year Lease Fraud Vitiates All Solemn Acts—Appointment Void Ab Initio Even After 27 Years: Allahabad High Court Litigants Cannot Be Penalised For Attending Criminal Proceedings Listed On Same Day: Delhi High Court Restores Civil Suit Dismissed For Default Article 21 Rights Not Absolute In Cases Threatening National Security: Supreme Court Sets Aside Bail Granted In Jnaneshwari Express Derailment Case A Computer Programme That Solves a Technical Problem Is Not Barred Under Section 3(k): Madras High Court Allows Patent for Software-Based Data Lineage System Premature Auction Without 30-Day Redemption Violates Section 176 and Bank’s Own Terms: Orissa High Court Quashes Canara Bank’s Gold Loan Sale Courts Can’t Stall Climate-Resilient Public Projects: Madras High Court Lifts Status Quo on Eco Park, Pond Works at Race Club Land No Cross-Examination, No Conviction: Gujarat High Court Quashes Customs Penalty for Violating Principles of Natural Justice ITAT Was Wrong in Disregarding Statements Under Oath, But Additions Unsustainable Without Corroborative Evidence: Madras High Court Deduction Theory Under Old Land Acquisition Law Has No Place Under 2013 Act: Punjab & Haryana High Court Enhances Compensation for Metro Land Acquisition UIT Cannot Turn Around After Issuing Pattas, It's Estopped Now: Rajasthan High Court Private Doctor’s Widow Eligible for COVID Insurance if Duty Proven: Supreme Court Rebukes Narrow Interpretation of COVID-Era Orders Smaller Benches Cannot Override Constitution Bench Authority Under The Guise Of Clarification: Supreme Court Criticises Judicial Indiscipline Public Premises Act, 1971 | PP Act Overrides State Rent Control Laws for All Tenancies; Suhas Pophale Overruled: Supreme Court Court Has No Power To Reduce Sentence Below Statutory Minimum Under NDPS Act: Supreme Court Denies Relief To Young Mother Convicted With 23.5 kg Ganja Non-Compliance With Section 52-A Is Not Per Se Fatal: Supreme Court Clarifies Law On Sampling Procedure Under NDPS Act MBA Degree Doesn’t Feed the Stomach: Delhi High Court Says Wife’s Qualification No Ground to Deny Maintenance

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

07 May 2024 8:19 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