Kuldip Singh, Judge

1. This is an application under Section 439 Cr.P.C., for releasing the petitioner on bail in FIR No. 92/12 dated 2.5.2012, registered at Police Station Haroli, District Una, H.P. under section 15 of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short, the Act). The allegation against the petitioner is that on 2.5.2012 at about 3.25 a.m., the truck PB-30C-3237 was checked by the police party in Kuthar Beet area, six sacks of poppy husk were found in the truck. The petitioner was not present at the scene nor he had any connection with the truck or alleged contraband.

2. The police arrested the petitioner on 14.5.2012 from Christian Medical College, Ludhiana, where he was undergoing treatment. There is no legal evidence to connect the petitioner with the alleged contraband. The petitioner has got a severe injury on his leg, which has made him incapable of even sitting for answering the call of the nature. The petitioner cannot move without stick nor can stand without the help of support. The petitioner is being taken to PGI Chandigarh by the police in ordinary buses. There is likelihood of the petitioner developing some serious infection or gangrene.

3. The petitioner has committed no offence. He has been falsely implicated in the case. The petitioner has been recently acquitted in a case of poppy husk where the quantity was more than two quintals. The petitioner has been falsely implicated by the police in other cases also. The petitioner is in jail for the last about six months. The petitioner has two sons, a wife and aged parents to look after. The family of the petitioner is virtually at the verge of starvation. The petitioner is ready to furnish the bail bonds. The submission has been made for releasing the petitioner on bail. The petitioner moved an application for releasing him on bail, but that was dismissed by the learned Special Judge, FTC, Una on 20.7.2012.

4. The status report has been filed. It has been stated that on 2.5.2012 at about 3.00 a.m., the police was at Nakka in Kuthar Beet area. At about 3.25 a.m., a truck came, it was signalled to stop, the moment truck stopped one person jumped from conductor side window and ran towards fields, he could not be apprehended but was identified Satnam Singh son of Kartar Singh.

5. The driver Satnam Singh and conductor Gurjeet Singh disclosed their identities, the truck was checked and six sacks were found in the tool box of the truck, which were found to contain 135 kilograms poppy husk. The sampling and sealing were done on the spot, NCB forms were filled. The bulk quantity of poppy husk and samples were taken into possession. The rukka was sent for registration of the case under section 15 of the Act. Satnam Singh driver and Gurjeet Singh conductor were arrested.

6. The contraband was got loaded in the truck by one Jagga, who was identified as Ravi Kumar son of Bakshinder Singh. He supplied the mobile number of Satnam alias Satta son of Kartar Singh to driver Satnam and conductor Gurjeet Singh for handing over poppy husk to Satnam alias Satta son of Kartar Singh. Satnam alias Satta was admitted in CMC, Ludhiana on account of leg injury by the name of Devinder and he had given wrong address in the hospital. Satnam alias Satta was discharged on 14.5.2012 and he was arrested on 14.5.2012. He is now in sub-jail, Una.

7. The petitioner is an accused in (1) FIR No. 94/08 dated 25.4.2008 under sections 307, 34 IPC & 25, 54, 59 of Arms Act registered at Police Station, Haroli, (2) FIR No. 89/99 dated 7.0.99 (sic) u/s 18-61-85 of ND&PS Act, registered at Police Station, Anandpur Sahab, Distt. Ropar, Punjab,(3) FIR No. 66/09 dated 23.4.2009 u/s 25-54-59 of Arms Act, registered at Police Station, Garhshankar, Punjab,(4) FIR No. 63/09 dated 22.4.2009 under sections 15-21-61- 85 of ND&PS Act, registered at Police Station, Garhshankar, Punjab (5) FIR No. 54/11 dated 9.3.2011 under section 309 IPC, registered at Police Station, Una, (6) FIR No. 85/05 dated 9.12.2005 under sections 279, 427, 201 IPC, registered at Police Station, Haroli and (7) FIR No. 298/10 dated 29.9.2010 under section 15-61-85 of ND&PS Act, registered at Police Station, Haroli. It has been stated that in the event of bail, the petitioner will terrorise the prosecution witnesses. He is habitual offender. The submission has been made for rejection of bail application.

8. Heard and perused the record. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that petitioner has been falsely implicated in the case by the police simply on the ground that he is facing some cases. The police is in the habit of implicating the petitioner in false cases one after other. The petitioner has been recently acquitted in case arising out of FIR No. 298 dated 29.9.2010 registered at police station Haroli. It has been submitted that petitioner is in bad shape on account of ill health. The petitioner has nothing to do with the above case. He was undergoing medical treatment at CMC Ludhiana from where he was arrested. The learned Dy. Advocate General has submitted that petitioner is habitual offender. He is already an accused in many cases referred above. The case in which he has been acquitted, the State has already filed an appeal in the High Court. It has been stated that petitioner will get medical treatment in accordance with law. The submission has been made for rejection of bail application.

9. The prosecution case is that truck in question was checked on 2.5.2012. The petitioner escaped from the truck. He took the benefit of darkness and could not be arrested, but he was identified while running away in the fields. The truck driver and conductor were arrested. The petitioner is an accused in several cases under various offences including under the Act. It appears the petitioner is habitual offender. There is substance in the apprehension of the prosecution that in case the petitioner is released on bail, he will repeat the offence under the Act. According to learned Dy. Advocate General, the petitioner will get medical treatment in accordance with law. The petitioner has failed to make out any case for grant of bail. Resultantly, the petition fails and is accordingly dismissed. Any observation made hereinabove shall not be construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case.