SAKIR RAHIMBHAI SHAIKH Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) RULE . Mr. Kodekar, learned APP waives service of Rule on behalf of the respondent - State.

(2.) THIS application has been preferred under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 in connection with the offence being CR No. II - 3319 of 2014 registered with Ellis Bridge Police Station, Ahmedabad City, for the offences u/s. 8(c), 21 read with Section 29 of the Narcotic and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as "the N.D.P.S. Act).

(3.) LEARNED advocate Mr. Agrawal appearing for the applicant submitted that the applicant is an innocent person and he is not connected with alleged commission of offence. He further submitted that the applicant had no knowledge about the existence of any contraband cannabis in the hanging bag on the two wheeler vehicle. He also submitted that the applicant is a pillion rider and the vehicle Activa was driven by the accused No. 1 and said beg was between the legs of the accused No. 1. He also submitted that the present applicant is wrongly implicated in the alleged offence. He also submitted that the recovered quantity is shown as 950 Grms., which is not commercial quantity. He therefore, submitted that the notification specifying small quantity and commercial quantity in the Schedule as prescribed in the Act as 1 Kg. at Sr. No. 23 and therefore, as per his submission, the quantity of contraband possessed by the applicant is not covered within the purview of the provisions of the N.D.P.S. Act and it is below than the commercial quantity. He submitted that in view of the Schedule as prescribed under the Act, looking to said quantity, the provisions of Section 37 of the N.D.P.S. Act is not applicable to the applicant. He also submitted that as per the Panchnama and complaint, the applicant is a pillion rider and the alleged contraband article was recovered from the accused No. 1. He further submitted that even the provisions of Sections 19, 24 and 27 -A for the offence involving commercial quantity, are not applicable to the case of the applicant. He also submitted that it is the case of the prosecution also that no contraband was found from the conscious possession of the present applicant. He also submitted that the applicant is ready and willing to abide by any suitable conditions as may be imposed by the Court. He therefore, prayed to grant regular bail to the applicant.