GULZAR Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) N. B. Asthana, J. The applicant is alleged to have been arrested on 3-1-1993 at about 11-00 a. m. and upon his search 25 imall packets, weighing 10 gms. of heroin were recovered. This recovery was made in the presence of two public witnesses. One of them, namely, Vinod alias Manju filed an affidavit stating that his signatures were taken on a blank paper, it has been argued that the other witness is a history-sheeter. These facts are to be deter mined at the time of final disposal of the case. At present it appears that two independent witnesses were taken by the police party at the time of search.

(2.) IT has then, been argued that the compliance of Section SO has not been made inasmuch as the applicant was not given offer to get himself searched before the gazetted officer. In the recovery memo it it stated that such offer was made but the applicant refused the offer. The counter-affidavit to that effect has also been filed. IT was next urged that the order passed by the court on 2-9-1993 has not been complied with. In compliance of this order C. A. has been filed. In this connection, it has also been pointed that the report of the chemical examiner has not so far been received. However, learned counsel for the applicant himself has placed before me, the copy of the order dated 27-4-1993 passed by VI Additional Sessions Judge, Varanasi in this very crime number, in which it is stated that the chemical examination report has been received and has been filed as part of the record. Second bail application was moved before that court. IT may be that the inspector filing the counter-affidavit did not know that the report of the chemical examiner has been received by the court and placed on record. I have considered all the argu ments advanced in the case. In view of the above it is not a fit case for bail.