Harish Chand @ Noori vs State
1991 Latest Caselaw 620 Del

JUDGMENT

V.B. Bansal, J.

(1) Harish Chand @ Noori has, by way of this application, prayed for bail in case Fir No. 25/91, Police Station Maurice Nagar, under Section 21/65/85 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act).

(2) Case of the prosecution in brief has been that on the basis of a secret information a raiding party was organized by S. I., Narender Singh. The petitioner was apprehended, an offer was made that he could be searched in the presence of a gazetted officer and that an information was available with the Investigating Officer regarding be being in possession of smack. This offer was declined and thereafter on personal search he was found in possession of 10 gms.of smack. One gram smack was separated as sample. The sample as well as the remaining smack were sealed by the I.0. with the seal of NSC. He took the same in possession after Cfsl form was filled up and in the meantime Sho also came who affixed his own seal of AJS.

(3) Learned Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that there has been a discrepancy in the Rukka forming the basis of Fir and the seizure Memo, which thereby indicate that either of the two documents have been fabricated. He has also submitted that there has not been any compliance of the provision contained in Sections 50 and 55 of the Act and that the petitioner infact has falsely been Implicated and nothing was recovered from him,

(4) This application has been opposed by the learned Counsel for the respondent who has submitted that there has not been any violation of the provisions contained in Sections 50 & 55 and the recovery of 10 gms. of smack was effected from the petitioner. There is no doubt that the option given to the petitioner was that if he wanted, be could he searched in the presence of a gazetted officer and there is no mention that the search even could be taken in the presence of a Metropolitan Magistrate. Offer was, however declined. Reading both the Fir and the seizure memo I do not find any material discrepancy Another submission of the learned Counsel for the petitioner has been that there is no mention as to in whose custody the Cfsl from kept. Trial is pending. Evidence is yet to be recorded.

(5) Considering all these facts, I do not find any case for bail. Dismissed. Petitioner Dismissed