ABDUL KHALID Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a petition for grant of bail under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

(2.) Mr. Siddiqui, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that in the present case procedural safeguards have not been strictly followed. He pointed out that all the 20 purias allegedly containing smack were mixed up and thereafter sample was drawn from the alleged smack. He, therefore, contended that it may be that some purias did not contain smack at all while other purias may be containing less than 250 mlgms. smack. The learned counsel further submitted that no public witness was associated prior to arrest of the petitioner and the explanation for not associating the public witness is unsatisfactory. He also submitted that there is violation of Section 52-A of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act (in short the Act) in as much as no inventory was prepared in this case. He then submitted that there is violation of Section 50 of the Act also as the option to be searched before a Gazetted Officer/Magistrate was not given to the petitioner. The learned counsel further submitted that there is a violation of Section 57 also as the requisite report was not sent to the immediate superior official. In support of his contentions, the learned counsel placed reliance on a judgement of Karnataka High Court reported in the case of A.V. Dhanna singhVS. 77ie State of Karnataka, 1993 Crl .L.J. 94.

(3.) Lastly the learned counsel submitted that the petitioner has been in jail since 9th March, 1990 i.e. for the last more than three years and he is having a young wife and four minor children and in the absence of the petitioner the arrangements for the proper education of the children is not being made. He, therefore, contended that in the alternative the petitioner should be released on interim bail for some period to make necessary arrangements for the proper education of the children.