SOHIL SAFI MOHAMMAD VOHRA Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr.K.B.Pandey, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the present petitioner and Mr.N.D.Gohil, learned APP for respondent - State.

(2.) In the present petition, the order passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Nadiad dated 19th April, 2001 in Criminal Misc. Application No. 223 / 2001 is challenged by the present petitioner. The petitioner has filed regular bail application before the Additional Sessions Judge, Nadiad and that application has been rejected while exercising the powers under Section 439 of CrPC, 1973. Mr.Pandey has raised two contentions, of which, the first contention is about consistency in approach by the lower judiciary as relied upon by him in case of S.I.ROOPALAL V. LT GOVERNOR THROUGH CHIEF SECRETARY, DELHI reported in 2000(1) SRJ 354. Mr.Pandey, learned advocate has mainly relied upon para-12 of the said judgment which runs as under :-

(3.) The second contention which has been raised by learned advocate Mr.Pandey placing reliance upon the decision of this Court reported in 1989 (1) F.A.C. 153 in case of CHANDRAKANT NAGINADAS MODI VS. STATE OF GUJARAT. Mr.Pandey, learned advocate has mainly contended that on verifying the slip, it appears that it was not affixed on the packet containing the muddamal either by gum or sealing wax. If it would have been properly affixed, it could not have been taken out intact. If, therefore, appears that the muddamal was not properly sealed and there was all the possibility of substituting the substance. Coupled with this, the fact that the muddamal remained with the police for more than two months raises a doubt and therefore prosecution has failed to establish the offence beyond reasonable doubt against the appellant.