Beant Singh v. State Of Punjab
!" #!$% &&& "#"#'! (
) (*+*
" " ',+!- . &&& */'!0 !"
(&'& ("#1+2 (* " #2*
! "
$$% ! "
!
#&$ '
! "
(
)
$&* $# #
$$%
+&&
$$%
,&&
&*-
*- $$% +&& -
$+
.$
%'&
3 45
&
/ 0
2&& 3 $%
14
24 335- /'
6&
/ *
$-
1% (!
2 * .
1 4 1 - !-
&
'
,6 .$ !
(
1%
. %$
/ *%$ 1'
3%- 8
-
% $
+ +%
&
# #$
#$
(
## #
#
* &$$ '&
: ;$&
++% $ % %$& $% %
#
4#
#$
&&*
#$
#
,1<
#$ - $&
'&
+$
!"
% +&&
%$ = 3+
%$#&
%
*
& & %&&
&*-
+%
%$
+$ $
$++%
!
6
& %$ &
'
+& &*
#& %
+&
*
#& #$ 6 +%-
$++
#
$& $
+ &*
+
$ &*
%$#& '+$
$++
# 1>
'%4
'
+& &*
#& %
: +
,6-
+
' %
+&
#& % ' $ %
4 6
+
+% %4 # $
&& 7$&& '
##
'
$
$ #$
9#
$
% $*
% (
6
% ' %$#&
%&&
' $%&
4&* 4 >
$&
$
%$ $
* '+
%
>
%$ $&
+&
# #$ ) '
$
'
&&$
(
1
#$ % $* % '
#$
! 1 < 1 %$ &
'
& $++
*
$&
!
$
,6
&
% ?
#
+ &*
=
$
$
'
-
,& &
&&
' & && $++
$ % :
$
-
,6- 1
1>
+$ 6 #%$
#
=
%$ ' +&&
%$ = *-
% %
$
1% ! .7/1 3%
%%
@
'
%$
%$
&
$++%
& +$ -
$
&&$
& %$ &
#
%$
'&
&
"
The petitioner is alleged to be found in conscious possession of commercial quantity of intoxicant tablets containing Etizolam on 22.04.2025. Since the recovery involved commercial quantity, the rigors of Section 37 of the NDPS Act would certainly be attracted against the petitioner. In such circumstances, bail can be granted only if this Court is satisfied that there are reasonable grounds to believe that the accused is not guilty of the alleged offence and is not likely to commit any offence while on bail. However, at this stage, this Court does not find any material on record to record a prima facie satisfaction that the petitioner is not guilty of the offence. The recovery has been effected from the conscious possession of the petitioner and the investigation stands completed. The plea of false implication on account of alleged personal
( animosity with police officials is a matter of defence, which cannot be gone into in detail at the stage of consideration of bail, particularly in the absence of any cogent material to substantiate the same. The argument that the petitioner was picked up from a different place and falsely shown to have been arrested from another location also raises disputed questions of fact, which would be subject matter of trial and cannot be adjudicated upon in these proceedings. Even otherwise, it is candid stand of the prosecution that at the time of registration of the present FIR, the aforesaid officials was not the SHO/Incharge of the Police Station Mehna. It is also not in dispute that the petitioner is involved in as many as 13 other cases of similar nature.
Such antecedents prima facie indicate a pattern of conduct and cannot be lightly brushed aside. The apprehension expressed by the State that the petitioner may indulge in similar activities, if released on bail, cannot be said to be unfounded. The custody undergone by the petitioner cannot be termed to be prolonged. There is nothing on record to show that there would be any undue delay in conclusion of trial. Keeping in view the aforesaid facts and circumstances, this Court is of the considered opinion that the petitioner has failed to make out a case for grant of regular bail. Consequently, the present petition is dismissed.
6
%&
$'
'$
&&
%$
A#
&&
+&% $%$
&7&8