USHA Vs. STATE NCT OF DELH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The learned counsel for the petitioner states that the alleged recovery of 1 kg of heroin is said to have been made from the petitioner on 2.4.2002. He submitted that a sample was said to have been taken out of the said alleged recovery and the report of the FSL reveals that the substance recovered contained 2.8 per cent diacetylmorphine. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, taking this percentage. the entire content of diacetylmorphine (heroin) in the recovered substance comes to only 28 grams of diacetylmorphine which is much below the commercial quantity specified in respect of heroin keeping in view the decision of this Court in the case of Ansar Ahmed vs. State: 123 (2005) DLT 563. Moreover the learned counsel for the petitioner also pointed out that the petitioner has been in judicial custody since 2.4.2002 and during this period she has been released on interim bail on 12 occasions and in none of these occasions, she had ever misused the liberty granted to her. He also submitted that the co-accused Madhu, Vikrant and Ravi Pandey have already been released on bail. From the co-accused Madhu, 700 grams of contraband is said to have been recovered having a percentage content of 0.17% diacetylmorphine which translated to 1.19 grams by weight. In the case of co-accused Vikrant, 100 grams is said to have been recovered having a purity of 0.14% diacetylmorphine. Insofar as the co-accused Ravi Pandey, nothing was recovered but he has been implicated under Section 29 of the NDPS Act. He also submitted that the petitioner had no antecedent criminal history under the NDPS Act.

(2.) The learned counsel for the State opposed the grant of bail. He submits that the petitioner was involved in an NDPS related case in respect of F.I.R. No. 14/2002 registered at Police Station Islamabad, Punjab (India). The said FIR was registered on 16.1.2002. He also submitted that the petitioner had also been convicted in a case under the Excise Act. The third case is the present one.

(3.) In rejoinder, the learned counsel for the petitioner pointed out that in the case registered under FIR No. 14/2002 the petitioner had been discharged. He has produced a copy of the petitioner's discharge order. Insofar as the offence under the Excise Act is concerned, the petitioner had been convicted and only a fine was imposed and the same had already been paid. Accordingly to him, there is no involvement of the petitioner in NDPS case other than the present case.