Can't ignore copy-paste narratives in drug cases: Punjab and Haryana High Court
Saurabh Malik
Chandigarh, December 18
In a significant setback for the Punjab Police, the Punjab and Haryana High Court has firmly stated that the allegations of a “copy-paste” approach in narrating the sequence of events in FIRs related to drug cases cannot be brushed aside.
Hundreds of cases with same story
During the course of arguments, the counsel for the petitioner also submitted that such sequence of events is stereotype, wherein not one but hundreds of such cases are registered in the state by copying same story. The argument raised by the counsel for the petitioner in this regard cannot be ignored. Justice Jasgurpreet Singh Puri
Taking note of stereotypical narratives in drug seizure cases, Justice Jasgurpreet Singh Puri of the high court said there was weight in the arguments by the counsel for an accused that “hundreds of cases” were being registered in the state by copying the same story.
Justice Puri was hearing a petition against the state for the grant of regular bail to an accused in an FIR registered on February 1 under the provisions of the NDPS Act at Goindwal Sahib police station of Tarn Taran district.
During the course of hearing, Justice Puri’s Bench was told that the alleged recovery was not from the “person of the petitioner” but the ground. The accused threw the packet away when he was seen by the police as per its version.
“During the course of arguments, the counsel for the petitioner submitted that such sequence of events is stereotype, wherein not one but hundreds of such cases are registered in the state by copying same story. The argument raised by the counsel in this regard cannot be ignored and it does carry weight for the purpose of considering bail application,” Justice Puri said.
Allowing the bail plea, Justice Puri added that the recovery was not carried out from the “person of the petitioner” and was marginally higher than the commercial quantity. Justice Puri said the court was of the view that the bar contained in Section 37 of the NDPS Act would not apply to the present petitioner, especially when he was in custody for more than 10 months. The charges had been framed but prosecution witness had not been examined.
