Justice Manisha Batra, Punjab & Haryana High Court
Contraband Found In Transparent Bag Cannot Be Evidence Of Innocence Or Police Malice: Punjab & Haryana High Court Denies Bail
|The Punjab & Haryana High Court was considering a Bail Application seeking grant of regular bail in an FIR registered under Section 22(c) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985.
The Punjab & Haryana High Court has held, while refusing bail to an accused, that the mere fact that the contraband was found in a transparent bag cannot, by itself, be treated as evidence of innocence or police malice.
The Court was considering a Bail Application seeking grant of regular bail in an FIR registered under Section 22(c) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985.
The Bench of Justice Manisha Batra held, ".....the mere fact that the contraband was found in a transparent bag cannot, by itself, be treated as evidence of innocence or police malice. More so, this Court cannot and neither is it supposed to assess the intelligence, prudence, or strategic thinking of the petitioner/accused to conclude whether he would or would not have carried contraband in a transparent bag. Both scenarios create a paradox as the petitioner knowingly carrying it or the police falsely planting it, are equally vulnerable to speculative reasoning and they seem unlikely as an accused carrying contraband openly in a transparent bag defies caution, whereas the police planting evidence in a transparent bag defies strategic thinking. It creates a logical standoff where neither side’s behavior aligns perfectly with rational expectations. Hence, on this very ground, not even a prima facie inference can be drawn regarding false implication of the petitioner by planting the recovered contraband upon him."
The Applicant was represented by Advocate Jaspreet Kaur, while the Respondent was represented by Additional Advocate General Sakshi Bakshi.
Facts of the Case
On the basis of suspicion, the Petitioner was apprehended by the police party when he was sitting under a street light and was holding a transparent plastic polythene bag. Personal search of the Petitioner as well as search of the said polythene bag was conducted and drugs were recovered from the said polythene bag. Since the Petitioner could not produce any license or permit to keep in his possession the recovered drugs, he was formally arrested at the spot.
Counsel for the Petitioner argued that he has been falsely implicated in this case and the recovery shown to have been effected from the Petitioner was in fact planted upon him as it is highly unlikely for a person to carry contraband in a transparent polythene bag. It was submitted that trial is likely to take time to conclude and the Petitioner is not involved in any other case of such or similar nature and therefore bail must be granted.
On the other hand, the Assistant Advocate General argued that the commercial quantity was recovered from the Petitioner and he was nabbed on the spot. It was contended that the story regarding false implication and plantation of the recovered contraband is concocted one. It was also argued that if the Petitioner is released on bail, he can abscond or indulge in similar offences.
Reasoning By Court
The Court didn't concur with the views expressed by its Coordinate Bench in previous similar matter wherein it released the accused persons on bail, from whose possession commercial quantity of the contraband was recovered, while noticing the fact that the recovery was effected from a transparent bag and it was highly unlikely that a person who is committing an offence in respect of any contraband would do it in such a manner that his/her detection is inevitable.
"If an accused sets up a claim of his false implication on the ground that no sensible person would carry contraband in a transparent bag on the logic that such visibility makes detection certain and thus defies common sense, then at the same time, this very logic must also apply to the police. If the allegation is that the police falsely implicated the petitioner by planting contraband, it is equally implausible that they would do so using a transparent bag, which would immediately raise doubts about the authenticity of the recovery. In fact, if the intention were to fabricate evidence and ensure a strong case, it would be far more logical for the police to use a concealed or opaque bag to avoid any suspicion of false implication," the Court observed.
The Application was accordingly dismissed.
Cause Title: Dharminder Singh vs. State of Punjab (2025:PHHC:065110)