STARKL FERDINAND Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is alleged to have been found carrying 675 grams of Hashish which is below the commercial quantity. He was apprehended on 11th November, 2004 and has been in judicial custody since then. The passport of the petitioner has already been seized by the Customs Authorities and it is with them. He further submitted that the only ground on which the learned Additional Sessions Judge has refused to grant the bail to the petitioner is that the petitioner was a foreigner and likely to abscond. The learned counsel for the petitioner has placed before this Court the decision of this Court in the case of Sartori Livio v. The State (Delhi Administration), 2005 2 RCR(Cri) 479 in which there was a reference of the case of Nasimjon Kamlov v. Custom,2005 1 JCC 91 in Crl.(M) No. 2038/2000. D/d. 31.7.2000. In the said decision, it was observed by this Court that "it is clear that just because a foreign national is involved, it does not mean that he is to be denied the benefit of bail."

(2.) The learned counsel for the State opposed the grant of bail and he relied on the decision in the case of Hegedus Lahel Csaba v. Union of India & Others, 2003 1 JCC 203 as well as Robert Lendi v. K.K. Dwivedi, 1986 1 RCR(Cri) 576

(3.) Upon considering the arguments advanced by the parties, I feel that in this case merely because the petitioner is a foreigner, it does not necessarily mean that he is to be denied the benefit of bail. While it is true that in many cases where foreigners are involved they somehow or the other manage to leave the country. However, it cannot be assumed that this should be the case in every situation in which a foreigner is involved. It is for the State authorities to ensure that such persons do not leave the territory of India.