← Library
High Court of Punjab and HaryanaCRM-M/12299/2025dismissed

Sakater Singh v. State Of Punjab

2025-03-05Mr. Justice Harpreet Singh Brar3 pages

   

      CRMM122992025 Date of decision: 05.03.2025 Sakater Singh ....Petitioner

Versus

State of Punjab

...Respondent

        

  Mr. A.S. Manaise, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Subhash Godara, Addl.A.G., Punjab.

  !"

# The present petition has been filed under Section 482 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 seeking anticipatory bail in case bearing FIR No.11 dated 02.02.2025 under Sections 21(c)/23/29 of the NDPS Act and Sections 10/11/12 of Aircraft Act, 1934 registered at Police Station Kalanaur, District Gurdaspur.

Succinctly, the facts of the case are that on 01.02.2025, BSF officials heard a humming sound of drone at Border Outpost Chanduwadala. The said officials swung into action and upon conducting a search, they apprehended two persons namely Sukhwinder Singh @ Sukhi and Amandeep Singh @ Gora (coaccused) working in the field of Harbhajan Singh. Consequently, a search of both these persons was effected, which resulted in the recovery of one packet of heroin weighing 550 grams along with 2 mobile phones. Upon further search of the area, one black Hero Splendor motorcycle, bearing registration No.PB02 BV6122 was also recovered. Subsequently, the police officials were informed and FIR (supra) was registered against both the coaccused. During

$$%%&&$%%'

$%$ interrogation, coaccused disclosed the name of the petitioner as one of the offenders, resulting in the nomination of the petitioner as one of the accused in the FIR(supra).

Learned counsel for the petitioner inter alia contends that the petitioner is having clean antecedents and there is no evidence with the Investigating Agency to remotely connect the petitioner with the alleged recovery of the contraband which admittedly has been recovered from the conscious and exclusive possession of the coaccused. The petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case on suspicion as petitioner has called the coaccused. It is further contended that the coaccused are the covillagers of the petitioner and they were missing, as such, the petitioner made calls on their mobile numbers on the asking of their family members. The entire case of the prosecution hinges upon the disclosure statement made by the coaccused during custodial interrogation and such statement recorded by the Investigating Officer is hit by Section 25 of the Indian Evidence Act which has no evidentiary value in the eyes of law.

Per contra, the learned State counsel opposes the prayer made by learned counsel for the petitioner on the ground that petitioner is a linchpin of the drug trafficking. The drugs were sent by drone from Pakistan. The petitioner orchestrated the entire delivery of contraband in India by first receiving the location of the coaccused and thereafter, sending the location to the drug peddler in Pakistan and a huge quantity of heroin has been recovered from the possession of the coaccused by the Border Security Forces (BSF). Having heard learned counsel for the parties, this Court finds it an urgent necessity to note the steady increase in cross border smuggling of illicit

$$%%&&$%%'

$($ drugs. The introduction of drones as a mode of trafficking has provided a cost efficient shift towards unmanned methods of trafficking. The increasing instances of drug smuggling into India through drones from across the Pakistan border pose a grave threat to national security and public health. This illicit trade not only fuels organized crime but also has a devastating impact on the youth, who are the most vulnerable to drug abuse. The easy availability of narcotics weakens the moral and social fabric of the nation, impeding the progress of future generations. The court recognizes that such offenses are not mere violations of law but have serious implications on the security and development of the State, necessitating stringent legal action.

Moreover, after going through the allegations contained in the FIR (supra) and the fact that the investigation is at the nascent stage, custodial interrogation of the petitioner is imperative to unearth the truth and the modus operandi how the smuggling of drugs through drones have been carried out, therefore, no ground is made out to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner and, thus, the present petition is hereby dismissed.

'(%%'

Whether speaking/reasoned :

Yes/No