Delhi High Court
Surinder Singh vs State (Delhi Administration) on 24 May, 1993
Equivalent citations: 1994 CriLJ 290
Bench: S Pal
ORDER
1. This is a petition for grant of bail under section 439 of the Criminal Procedure Code.
2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that a case was registered against the petitioner on 10th May, 1991 vide FIR No. 299/91 under section 20 of the N.D.P.S. Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as the Act for alleged recovery of 20 grams of charas.
3. Mr. Taneja, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, submitted that the petitioner has been falsely implicated and he is innocent. He further submitted that on 9th May, 1992 the petitioner was released from jail as he was acquitted in another case and immediately on the next date i.e. 10th May, 1991 he was falsely implicated in this case as the police officers of PS Tilak Nagar were annoyed with him because a few years before the happening, the father of the petitioner died in custody and they had lodged a complaint against the police.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner also submitted that in the present case CFSL form was not deposited with the moharer malkhana, nor the same was sent to CFSL laboratory and as such the statutory provisions of the Act have been violated. The learned counsel further submitted that in the present case no public witness was associated at the time of search and seizure and on this aspect also the statutory provisions of the Act have been violated. He also submitted that the seal was also not handed over to any public witness but was handed over to a constable. In support of his submissions he placed reliance on Safi Ullah v. State (1973) 1 Crimes 204 (Delhi), Wilson Dayal v. State, (193) 1 Crimes 207 (Delhi) and Mool Chand v. State, (1993) 49 DLT 649. He, therefore, contended that the petitioner should be released on bail.
5. Ms. Gupta, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State, has strenuously opposed the petition and submitted that no provision of the Act has been violated in the present case. She drew may attention to DD entry No. 221 from the lower court records which clearly shows that CFSL form was deposited with the moherar malkhana for safe custody. She also drew my attention to Ex. PW 1/A to prove that the CFSL form was sent to CFSL laboratory. The learned counsel submitted that the death of petitioner's father has got no relevance with the facts of the present case as there is no allegations that any of the officer who was posted at the time of death was a member of the raiding party. Learned counsel further submitted that the petitioner is a previous convict under the Arms Act. She, therefore, submitted that the petitioner is not entitled to be released on bail.
6. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties. Keeping in view Ex. PW/1A and DD entry No. 221 it cannot be said at this stage that there are reasonable grounds to believe that the petitioner is not guilty of the offence. The judgments cited by the learned counsel for the petitioner are also not relevant at this stage of the case.
7. Accordingly, the petition is dismissed.
8. The observations given hereinabove will have no bearing on the merits of the case. The lower court records be sent back forthwith.
9. Petition dismissed.
