SURENDER KUMAR Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Surender Kumar has filed this application for bail for the offence under Section 15 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substancs Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act").

(2.) Briefly stated the prosecution story has been that on 6.6.1991, SI A as Mohammed while accompanied by other police officials was present near DDA Quarters, H Block in connection with a case and at about5.15p.m.,whenhereceivedasecret information that one person would becoming with some drugs at about 7.15p.m. and could be apprehended. Raiding party was accordingly organized by the Sub Inspector in which, one A. Ahmed was joined from the public besides police officials. The petitioner was apprehended a t the pointing out of the informer and the petitioner was informed about information available with the police officials and that he was informed that if he wanted he could be searched in the presence of a gazetted officer or a magistrate. This offer was, however, declined by the petitioner, who was then searched and was found having 2 Kgs. of opium. Sample was taken out and property was seized after following the procedure.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that there has been non-compliance of the provisions contained in Section 57 of the Act in as much as full report of all the particulars of the arrest and seizure of the case property was not sent to the immediate superior officer, on account of which, the petitioner is entitled to bail and even to be acquitted and thus, this is a sufficient ground for release of the petitioner on bail. He has also submitted that the petitioner has in fact been prejudiced on account of the non- sending of such a report as there was sufficient chance available to the 1.0. to make improvement in the prosecution story. He has also submitted that there has been an inordinate delay in the disposal of the case and this also is a sufficient ground for the release of the petitioner on bail. He has placed reliance upon the case of Mohammed Ahsan versus State (1994 JCC 49) and Babu Rao versus State of Kanataka (1993(1) Crimes 865).