ALAM BHURE SHAH Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned Counsel for the applicant and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondent-State.

(2.) The learned Additional Public Prosecutor vehemently opposed the application for bail.

(3.) This is an application for bail in respect of an offence punishable under Sec. 20(b)(ii)(C) of the Narcotic Drugs and Pschotrophic Substance Act, 1985 ('NDPS Act' for short), and registered vide FIR No. 8 of 2021. The applicant was arrested on 16/4/2021. The applicant is in custody for more than two years. I am informed that one witness has been examined and two more witnesses are to be examined. However, it is submitted that the trial is not proceeding as the Court is vacant. The applicant was found in possession of 1.100 grams of charas, the commercial quantity stipulated is 1.000 kg of charas. The rigors of Sec. 37 of the NDPS Act, therefore, would be attracted. For the quantity found and the fact that there are no criminal antecedents against the applicant, would have otherwise been a good ground to release the applicant on bail. However, the twin conditions of Sec. 37 would have to be satisfied. The trial, undoubtedly, will take some time to complete and the applicant is in custody for more than two years. Moreover, the report of the Forensic Science Laboratory indicates that there is presence of cannabis as also tetrahydrocannabinol. For the purpose of grant of bail, I am inclined to accept the submission of the learned Counsel for the applicant that though what is alleged is that applicant is found in possession of charas, a reference to cannabis in the FSL report would entitle the applicant to get over the rigors of Sec. 37 of the NDPS Act.