Saurabh Malik
Tribune News Service
Chandigarh, May 16
Describing a “default bail” order passed in a drugs case by Tarn Taran Additional District and Sessions Judge as prima facie “not legal and sustainable”, the Punjab and Haryana High Court has sought an explanation from the judicial officer. Justice Arvind Singh Sangwan of the High Court has also asked Tarn Taran SSP to file an affidavit explaining why the order was not challenged.
Justice Sangwan also made it clear that the police officer would remain present before the court in person on the next date of hearing in case the affidavit was not filed. The directions came on a petition filed against the State of Punjab by Jora Singh.
His counsel referred to an order dated February 15, 2021, passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, granting “default bail” under Section 167(2) CrPC to co-accused Ranjit Singh. Justice Sangwan observed the BSF recovered more than 13 kg of heroin before three persons, Ranjit Singh, Gurpreet Singh and Zora Singh were arrested on September 24, 2020. Thereafter, more heroin was recovered falling under non-commercial quantity on the basis of their disclosure statements.
The public prosecutor raised an objection that the period for completing the investigation would be 180 days since the total recovery in the case fell under commercial quantity.
But the Additional Sessions Judge conveniently ignored the fact that the first recovery was of more than 13 kg. He only considered the fact that 100-gm heroin was recovered from Ranjit Singh subsequent to the disclosure. As the subsequent recovery fell under non-commercial quantity, the investigation was to be completed within 60 days. Accused Ranjit Singh was, as such, granted the concession of default bail. Similar order was passed by the same court granting default bail to accused Gurpreet Singh.
“On the face of it, the order dated February 15, 2021, passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Tarn Taran, is not a legal and sustainable order. However, the same was not challenged by the State. The Additional Sessions Judge, Tarn Taran, will furnish an explanation to this court as to how the period of 60 days was considered for completion of investigation instead of 180 days, despite an objection raised by the public prosecutor,” Justice Sangwan asserted. The case will now come up for further hearing in May last week.
Court seeks explanation from judicial officer for ‘default bail’ order in drugs case
{$excerpt:n}
