RAHUL SAINI Vs. STATE OF DELHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this case, there is an alleged recovery of 2 kg of contraband from co-accused Manish and a further recovery of 1.5 kg of contraband from one room at B-3A, New Govind Pura, Chander Nagar. This bail application concerns the second alleged recovery. It is the case of the prosecution that the said room from where the 1.5 kg of contraband was recovered, was in the occupancy of the present petitioner Rahul Saini, who was residing in that room as a tenant. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that when the alleged recovery was made from an open almirah in the said room, the present petitioner was not present. He further submits that the recovery was allegedly made from the said room and at that point of time, even as per the prosecution case, the room was unlocked. He further submits that the recovery was made pursuant to a purported disclosure statement made by co-accused Manish and till that point of time Rahul (the present petitioner) was not in the picture at all. This is one of the grounds raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner for seeking bail on his behalf. He submits that the circumstances throw a cloud over the alleged recovery said to have been made from the said room which is alleged to have been in occupation of the present petitioner. According to him, the connection between the recovery and the present petitioner is tenuous.

(2.) The learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the recovery of heroin, which is alleged to have been made, is also suspect because of another circumstance. He pointed out that initially when the alleged recovery was made a sample was taken and was sent to the laboratory for testing. The first report is dated 27.05.2002 and it indicated that the sample contained 54.9% diacetylmorphine. Thereafter, when the matter was before the Trial Court, an application was moved for retesting of the sample. The court acceded to that request and passed the following order on 06.05.2006:

(3.) Pursuant to the said order, the samples C-l & F-l were sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory for re-examination. We are not concerned with the sample C-1 inasmuch as it pertains to the recovery allegedly made from co-accused Manish. In this application we are concerned with the sample labelled F-l which is said to be taken from the case property pertaining to the recovery sought to be connected to the present petitioner. The result of examination as reported by the Forensic Science Laboratory on 03.06.2006 is indicated below: