Presumption Of Correctness Of Judicial Records Not Absolute And Can Be Rebutted By Direct Evidence: Kerala High Court on Married Daughter Cannot Challenge Partition After 21-Year Slumber If She Had Knowledge: Madhya Pradesh High Court Kerala High Court Orders Immediate Suspension Of Lakshadweep CJM For Allegedly Forging Witness Deposition To Convict Accused Supreme Court Bars Post-Divorce Maintenance Claims When Wife Voluntarily Waived Maintenance In Settlement Agreement Advocate Is An Officer Of Court, Not Mere Agent Of Client: Allahabad High Court Distinguishes Between Active Concealment & Statement In Ignorance, Slaps Cost On Litigants For Misleading Bench Cannot Summon Accused Mechanically On Protest Petition Without Assigning Justifiable Reasons: Andhra Pradesh High Court Increment Not A Bounty: Allahabad High Court Rules Public Holiday Cannot Delay Pay Hike For Teachers Joining Next Working Day Paying Taxes Or Utility Connections Confer No Legal Ownership Over Govt Land': Andhra Pradesh High Court Orders Demolition Of Encroachment 'Cannot Compel Public Authority To Collect Data From Private Bodies': Bombay High Court Quashes CIC Orders Directing SEBI To Procure BSE Records Under RTI Act Section 10 CPC Cannot Stay Previously Instituted Title Suit Pending Subsequent Probate Case; Inherent Powers Under Section 151 Inapplicable When Probate Dismissed: Calcutta High Court Mere Phone Calls Without Transcripts No Ground For Murder Conspiracy: Delhi High Court Clear Violation Of Section 42 NDPS Act': Gujarat High Court Holds Failure To Record Secret Info In Writing Fatal When Police Officer Had Time To Act JK High Court Quashes Criminal Case Against Cop Accused Of Threatening Advocate Over Phone Call Without Prior Sanction Under Section 197 CrPC Custody Unwarranted For Mere Formalities Once Weapon Is Recovered: Kerala High Court Grants Regular Bail In BNS Axe Attack Case Circumstances Of Crime Can Be Assessed During Trial: High Court Upholds Trial Of Minor As Adult Under JJ Act In Murder Case Statutory Deposit Under Order 21 Rule 89 CPC Is A Sine Qua Non; Litigant Cannot Stall Auction Sale By Merely Blaming Counsel: Madras High Court Ban Junk Food Within 50 Metres Of Schools: Rajasthan High Court Takes Suo Moto Cognizance To Enforce FSSAI Norms, Protect Children From Obesity

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