Driver of vehicle

While the appellant was driving the vehicle all alone, no ambiguity was left as to his full control and conscious possession of the recovered contraband, especially when those were recovered from its floor

Appeal against conviction was dismissed, in circumstances.

Prosecution case was that during the course of nakabandi laid by the police at the spot a motor car was stopped for the purpose of checking, wherein, the accused was found on the driving seat while two accused persons were occupying the front and rear seats respectively

After some interrogation, they were de-boarded from the vehicle and one of them was found to be in possession of .30 bore pistol with 25 live cartridges and 3600 grams of charas was recovered from secret cavities of the vehicle

Driver of the vehicle was in full command and control of the same, therefore, he could not feign ignorance about the presence of huge quantity of narcotic stashed in the secret cavities of the vehicle in respect of which the Forensic Laboratory's report was also in affirmative

As such, he being prima facie connected with the commission of offence was held disentitled to the concession of bail

Other accused persons were prima facie qualified for the grant of bail qua their involvement in the commission of offence

Application of driver was dismissed whereas that of other accused persons was allowed.

Chars weighing 2 kilograms and heroin weighing 100 grams were recovered from beneath the driving seat of vehicle which was being driven by accused

Effect

Driver could not be absolved from the liability, if contraband was transported in the vehicle being driven by him

High Court declined to grant bail on merit lest it could cause prejudice to other side

On tentative assessment of record there existed prima facie case against accused

Bail was refused, in circumstances.

Vehicle and the accused persons were taken to the police station where the floor of the vehicle was opened through electric cutter and 54 packets of heroin were recovered from its secret cavities

Statements of complainant, marginal witness to the recovery memo, member of the police party who kept parcel containing the remaining quantity of heroin in malkhana and Investigating Officer were consistent on all material aspects and no distinct discrepancy was noticed to mar the credibility of their testimony

Mode and manner of arrest of the accused, the driver of vehicle, leading to recovery of narcotics was duly proved

Prosecution evidence was unanimous with regard to the arrest of the accused, number of secret cavities, the taking of vehicle to the police station, where the secret cavities were cut through electric cutter and 54 packets of heroin were recovered from the same and to that extent the evidence of the prosecution was also confidence inspiring

Accused, the driver of the vehicle, was responsible for whatever was lying in the vehicle, he could not be absolved of his responsibility of the contraband recovered from the vehicle in question

Prosecution had successfully proved its case against the accused beyond any shadow of doubt

Trial Court had rightly awarded life imprisonment to the accused

Impugned judgment to the extent of accused did not warrant interference by the High Court.

Driver of the vehicle had the knowledge and control over all the articles lying therein.

Articles lying in the vehicle would be under the control and possession of the driver of the vehicle.