'Promotion Effected Long Ago Not To Be Disturbed': Supreme Court Sets Aside HC Order Quashing 13-Year-Old Promotion; Holds 'Laying Rules' Directory Not Mandatory "Mere Oral Assertion Or 'Data Loss' Letter Not Enough To Prove Driving Licence Validity; Owner Has Strict Duty To Ensure Renewal": Supreme Court Reinstates Insurer's Non-Liability, Applies 'Pay & Recover' Principle "Zero Tolerance To Corruption": Supreme Court Reinstates FIRs Against Karnataka Cops, Slams High Court For 'Mini-Trial' & Exceeding S.482 CrPC Powers ‘Ancillary Services Don't Override Carriage’: Supreme Court Upholds 7.5% Presumptive Income For Cruise Operators Under Section 44B IT Act, Rejects Revenue's Higher Tax Claim Division Bench Refuses To Quash FIR, Holds It Cannot Nullify Single Judge's Final Order Directing Registration Of Case: Allahabad High Court High Court Leave Under Clause XII Doesn't Protect Transferred Suits; Section 16 CPC Strictly Applies To City Civil Court In 'Suits For Land': Bombay High Court Joint Account Holder Who Didn't Sign The Dishonoured Cheque Cannot Be Prosecuted Under Section 138 NI Act: Punjab & Haryana High Court Suits Cannot Be Consolidated If Parties, Properties, And Causes Of Action Are Different: Telangana High Court P&H High Court Halts All Construction In Mohali's Shivalik Foothills Over Failure To Demarcate 'Forest Land', Bars Land Sale No Embargo On Issuing Single Statutory Notice Under Section 138 NI Act For Multiple Dishonoured Cheques: Orissa High Court District Collector Has No Jurisdiction Under CrPC To Order Reopening Of Investigation Or Recall Of Closure Report: Madhya Pradesh High Court No Exclusive Monopoly Over Geographical Term 'Malabar' In Isolation; Protection Limited To Registered Composite Marks: Kerala High Court Person In 'De Facto' Control Is A Promoter Under Companies Act Even If Designated As Professional Director: Karnataka High Court Supreme Court Urges Mandatory Animal Tagging, Strict Enforcement of Gaushala Laws To Tackle Stray Cattle Crisis; Holds Owners Accountable "Don't Render Victims Remediless": Supreme Court Slams High Court For Dismissing Plea Over Stray Bull Death, Awards ₹15 Lakh Compensation Supreme Court Red-Flags 'Unregulated Shadow Work' of Private Investigators, Calls For Legislative Overhaul on Digital Evidence & Privacy Rights 125 CrPC | Wife 'Not Entitled To Interim Maintenance If Adultery Established Ex Facie': Supreme Court Evidence Against Absconder Invalid Without Prior S.299 CrPC Order: SC Acquits Murder Accused Ad Valorem Court Fee Mandatory For Section 54 Appeals Challenging Land Acquisition Awards: Supreme Court

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