Anuradha @ Lado & Anr. vs State
2015 Latest Caselaw 2705 Del

    * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

                                   Date of Decision: April 06, 2015

+     BAIL APPLN. 85/2015
      ANURADHA @ LADO & ANR.              ..... Petitioners
                  Through: Mr. Manoj Sharma, Advocate

                          versus

      STATE                                                 ..... Respondent
                          Through:       Mr. Vinod Diwakar, Additional
                                         Public Prosecutor for respondent-
                                         State

      CORAM:
      HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR

                          JUDGMENT

% (ORAL)

Petitioners are accused in FIR No.252/2014, under Sections 21/29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (henceforth referred to as the 'NDPS Act'), who seek bail when the trial is at the fag-end.

At the hearing, learned counsel for petitioners informs that matter is coming up before the trial court on 24th April, 2015 for recording of statement under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. of petitioners-accused. Learned counsel for petitioners submits that it is a good case for bail, as there is inherent contradiction on the point of recovery, testing and there is non-compliance of mandatory provisions of NDPS Act.

During the course of hearing, attention of this Court was drawn to

Bail Application No.85/2015 Page 1 the impugned order which reveals that petitioners are being tried for illegal possession of 500 gms. and 300 gms. of heroin, which is a commercial quantity. To meet the bar under Section 37 of the NDPS Act, learned counsel for petitioners had drawn attention of this Court to depositions of recovery witness (PW-9) and the FSL Expert (PW-10) to point out that there was change of the colour of the recovered substances and petitioners' application for retesting has been erroneously dismissed by the trial court.

Upon hearing and on perusal of the FIR of this case, status report and copy of deposition of material witnesses (PW-9 & PW-10), I find that the evidence recorded is not required to be pre-judged at this advance stage of trial. In the facts and circumstances of this case, this Court is of the considered view that instead of entertaining petitioners' application for bail at the advance stage of trial, it would be appropriate to direct the trial court to expedite trial of this case, as petitioner is in custody since October, 2012.

This application is accordingly disposed of with direction to trial court to expedite trial of this case and to preferably conclude it within a period of three months or so from the date already fixed.

Trial court be apprised of this order forthwith.

                                                          (SUNIL GAUR)
                                                            JUDGE
APRIL 06, 2015
r




Bail Application No.85/2015                                           Page 2