STATE OF GUJARAT Vs. SHAIKH LALA SHAIKH BALU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) "Whether at the pre-trial stage of deciding the bail application for the alleged offence under Sec. 20(b) of the Narcotic Drugs & Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, the Court is justified in going into technical questions such as (i) the compliance of the mandatory provisions under Secs. 42(2) and 50(1) of the NDPS Act; and (ii) regarding the possession of the house in question from where the muddamal narcotic substance was found out ?" These two questions arise for consideration in the context of the facts and circumstances as enumerated hereunder.

(2.) According to the prosecution, Mr. P. V. Kotwal, PSI, Limbayat Police Station, Surat, on receiving the tip-off that Shaikh Lala Shaikh Balu was illegally storing and selling "Ganja", he immediately requisitioned the services of two panchas and raided his house on 4-8-1993 at 21-30 hours. At that time, the accused was present in the house and on taking search of his house, from one room, white coloured bag was recovered and on opening the same, "Ganja" was found out. On making inquiry about the possession of the said "Ganja", the accused had neither any pass nor permit nor could he render any explanation. Thereafter, on weighing the said muddamal, the same was found to be weighing in all 8.20 kg. This was seized under the Panchnama. On the basis of this allegation, the respondent was arrested and a complaint was filed against him on the very day at Limbayat Police Station for the alleged offences under Sec. 20(b) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short 'NDPS Act'), which came to be registered as CR-III 63 of 1993. Thereafter, it appears that on 28-4-1993, the accused submitted a bail application, the same being Misc. Criminal Application No. 1196 of 1993 in the Sessions Court at Surat. This was allowed by an order dated 3-9-1993 and accordingly, the accused came to be released on bail in the sum of Rs. 7,000.00 and a surety of the like amount and upon other terms and conditions as stated in detail in the impugned order, giving rise to the present application for cancellation of bail.

(3.) The respondent-accused though served, is absent, however, taking into consideration the fact that this is an application for cancellation of bail and that too under the NDPS Act, and further in view of the fact that the accused is unrepresented, Mr. J. M. Panchal, the learned Advocate was requested to assist the Court as amicus curiae which he readily agreed and ably assisted for which this Court is thankful to him.