MANOJ SINGH Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner is facing prosecution u/Sec. 18 of theNDPS Act for being found in possession of 206 gms. of opium 'on 16.1.1992.He applies for bail.

(2.) I have heard arguments advanced by the learned Counsel for theparties. The most glaring fact which appears to me to be lacking in this caseis that there is no mention about the deposit of CFSL form in the Malkhana.learned Counsel for the petitioner also says that the constable who took thesample to CFSL and whose name is Laxmi Narain has not said in him statement u/Sec. 161 Criminal Procedure Code that he deposited CFSL form in the Malkhana. Another fact which weighs in my mind at this stage is that the article recoveredis not of a very high value. Other points also have been argued but I do notconsider it necessary to discuss those points.

(3.) Taking the totality of the circumstances into consideration. I amof the view that there seems to be some lacuna in the prosecution case,prima fade. The petitioner is, therefore, granted bail on furnishing apersonal bond in the sum of Rs. 7,000.00 with one surety for the like amountto the satisfaction of the trial Court Any observations made herein will haveno bearing on the trial of the case.