ASIBULLAH KHAN Vs. STATE OF DELHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been in custody since 12.03.2002, i.e., for over four years. The alleged recovery of contraband from the petitioner is said to be of over 500 grams. However, as per the FSL Report, the actual content of diacetylmorphine was found to be 3.42%. This, in terms of weight, would amount to 17.1 grams. Accordingly, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted in view of the ratio of Ansar Ahmed and Others v. State: 123 (2005) DLT 563 that the recovery was an intermediate quantity and not a commercial quantity. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, this fact was also recognised by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, however, bail was not granted on the simple ground that it was more than the small quantity.

(2.) Mr Pawan Sharma, the learned counsel who appeared for the State, opposed the grant of bail on the ground that even though the quantity recovered from the petitioner would not be a commercial quantity, it was still a quantity of 17.1 grams.

(3.) Considering the ratio of Ansar Ahmed (supra), the recovery is certainly of an amount which is far less than the commercial quantity. In terms of the decision in the case of Mahesh Pal Singh v. State [Bail Application No.2529/2005], a judgment delivered today itself by this court, the purity of the recovery has also to be examined for the purposes of bail. I find that the purity in this case is only 3.42% which is on the lower side. I also find that the petitioner has also been in custody for over four years. Accordingly, the petitioner is directed to be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.20,000/- with one surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the concerned court/Duty Magistrate. This application stands disposed of.