JOGINDER SINGH Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) S. K. Verma, J. Heard learned Counsel for the parties. It has been argued on the basis oil the statement under Section 161, Cr. P,c. of the Arresting Officer that he has not even tried to explain the discrepancy in the offer made under Section 60 of N. D. P. S. Act and therefore the benefit should go to the applicant.

(2.) CONSIDERING the decision of the Delhi High Court in Chameli Devi v. State, 1994 (1) EFR 501, the applicant is entitled to bail.