Pushpa Devi vs State
2010 Latest Caselaw 5340 Del

               *           IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI


                                                  Date of Reserve: November 19, 2010

                                 Date of Order: November 24, 2010

                                  + Bail Appln. No. 1305/2010
%                                                                              24.11.2010
         Pushpa Devi                                                  ...Petitioner

         Versus

         State                                                        ...Respondents

Counsels:

Mr. M. Babibuddin for petitioner.
Mr. Sunil Sharma for respondent.


         JUSTICE SHIV NARAYAN DHINGRA

1.       Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?

2.       To be referred to the reporter or not?

3.       Whether judgment should be reported in Digest?


                                              ORDER

1. This application for bail has been made by the applicant who was apprehended

by the police with 17 packing (purias) of smack and is facing trial under NDPS Act.

These small packets of smack had total weight of 12 gm of smack. FSL report shows

that smack was of high concentration. It only seems that the applicant/ petitioner was a

distributor of smack to the users.

2. The bail is sought by the petitioner on the ground that the petitioner was falsely

implicated in the present case. Chargesheet has already been filed by the prosecution.

The petitioner/accused is a woman having a minor daughter of three years to look after,

who lives with her in jail.

Bail Appln. No.1305/2010 Page 1 Of 2

3. The application has been opposed by the prosecution on the ground that the

applicant was a distributor of smack to the users and her crime was serious and heinous

in nature, although the quantity of smack recovered from her was 12 gm.

4. The charge against the petitioner was framed on 15th July, 2010. Since the

petitioner is a woman and having one daughter of three years with her in jail, it would be

appropriate that directions are given to the trial court to expedite the trial. The trial court

is therefore directed to conduct the trial of the present case in an expeditious manner so

that the case of the applicant is decided at the earliest. However, considering that

applicant was supplying drug to users, I do not consider her entitled to bail.

5. The bail application is hereby dismissed.

November 24, 2010                                     SHIV NARAYAN DHINGRA, J
rd




Bail Appln. No.1305/2010                                                     Page 2 Of 2