Makhan Singh v. State Of Punjab
!" "
! "
!
###
"#
" $
%&'&
" "()* ++
,- ,.
/,/,
// /01"
/23*4
$250
" "
4 %"
/
"
" "& "
' ' "
"
"& &7
& 8
" 7 8 ' ' " &
"&98
% 9
/, $/ /,/- 988+-$0.8/,/- " & 7
&
" & "'""
"
& ""
-
)
! "
!
&"
"
&
"
" : & ' 8 ' " ; &
"
<
&'& !
&
"
4 = 4 %" 9 &
"
&"
"9
&
>
+
"& 0+
?8 5. Role of the Petitioner: That the role attributed to the presentpetitioner is that of a conspirator under Section 29 of the NDPS Act.The investigation indicates that the petitioner was part of the supplychain and was involved in facilitating procurement and distribution of psychotropic substances. Though no physical recovery was affected from the petitioner, his role is established through the conspiracy angle, which does not require physical possession of contraband. The petitioner acted in concert with the main accused and shared common intention and knowledge regarding the illegal trade of intoxicant tablets. His involvement was prior to the recovery and contributed to the commission of the offence.
That during interrogation of the co accused Humesh Kumar and Baljit Singh suffered disclosure statement to the effect that they used to buy intoxicating tablets from Munesh Kumar r/o Loni Pushta at 1000 to 1200 Rs per box. That they were supposed to deliver the present consignment to present petitioner Makhan Singh, who is relative of co accused Baljit Singh, at higher prices. Thus, the acts attributed to the petitioner were deliberate and knowing, aimed at furthering the object of the conspiracy. The material on record prima facie establishes his complicity in theoffence.
6. Evidence against the Petitioner: That the evidence against the petitioner consists of material collected during investigation, including disclosures of co-accused, chain of events establishing conspiracy, and corroborative circumstances. The prosecution case does not rest on a single piece of evidence but on cumulative material indicating involvement of the petitioner. The recovery of commercial quantity of psychotropic substances, the disclosures connecting the petitioner to the supply network, and the continuation of criminal conspiracy collectively constitute prima facie evidence. At the stage of bail, meticulous examination of evidence is neither required nor permissible.
The evidence on record sufficiently establishes reasonable grounds for believing that the petitioner is involved in the offence and that the accusations are well-founded. That during investigation one Sunny Singh s/o RajuSingh r/o Handiaya got recorded his statement with 10 to the effect of conspiracy of co-accused Baljit Singh and present petitionerMakhan Singh in illicit traffic of drugs from states outside Punjab and further selling the same in retail in Punjab. He further disclosed that co-accused Baljit Singh used to procure consignments of narcotic tablets and used to deliver to presentpetitioner for sale in retail. .
""
"
' "& 7
' 8
"
7
7
"
8
7 8 ' ' " &
"& 98
% 9
/, $/ /,/-
988+-$0.8/,/-7
&
/5 ,5 /,/< "'""
" "
'" &
&&
"
"" & '"" " & "9
&
"
" ""
" @ 9
""
=
' @ &
""'
=
"
"" :
"9 ;4 &
;9 A "
" $%$&% B
; ;* B
"
;*