SITARAM RADHESHYAM Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The applicant has been arrested in connection with Crime No. 1/88 of Central Narcotics Bureau Centre, Guna, charging him with commission of a crime under section 8/18 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter N.D.P.S.A. for short). A new Premier Padmini Car bearing temporary registration No. MBB 460 was moving on A-B Road from the manufacturer to a dealer at Gwalior. When this car was passing through township of Binaganj this applicant took a lift giving out a pretext that his wife was admitted at Civil Hospital, Guna, upto which point he wanted to travel. A little later, the movement of car was intercepted and the applicant was found sitting with a bag in his hand. The bag contained opium weighing 6.700 Kgs. The driver of the car too has stated to the police that it was this applicant to whom the bag belonged. The investigation conducted by the Narcotics Bureau reveals that this applicant is engaged in smuggling and earlier also he had carried opium on one occasion. The applicant is resident of Mehgaon a place situated at a remote distance from the place where he took lift in the car. The reason which he advanced for being at Binaganj was not substantiated during investigation. The Chemical Analyser has found the seized article to be opium. Since 23-1-1989 the applicant is in custody. The Sessions Court has rejected the prayer for bail.

(2.) Before this Court implicit reliance has been placed by the learned counsel for the applicant on a decision of this Court namely Ramesh Chand vs. State of M.P. Misc. Cr. Case No. 1048/1987, decided on 28-7-1987 at Indore and published as Short Note in 1987 Cri. L.R. M. P. Section 324. It is further contended that this decision has been relied on to grant bail by this Court in several subsequent cases, one of them being Rameshwar Prasad vs. Union of India, Cr. Misc. Case No. 911/1986, decided on 15-10-1988 and published as Short Note in 1988 MPWN 2 223. This decision is also relied on by Shri Gupta, In addition, he cites Fouji Ram vs. State of Haryana, 1988 Cri.L.J. 29.

(3.) It is the time to make some observations about indiscriminate reporting of the decisions of High Courts, though not approved for reporting and mostly published as Short Notes. The Criminal Law Reporter published from Jodhpur has reported the decision of Indore Bench in Ramesh Chand by omitting paragraphs 1 to 4 and 6, 7 from reporting but publishing only paragraphs 5 and 8 of the decision, naturally the Short Note as printed provides a reading of the order, divorced from the context. What has been published as paragraph 5, simply re-states the well established proposition of law that bail is not to be refused as a measure of punishment because the question of punishment properly crops up for consideration at the conclusion of trial. What has been published as paragraph indicates that it was on a careful consideration that the Court look the view that the accused-applicant therein deserved to be enlarged on bail. Presumably that careful consideration must have been on the facts of that case. Rameshwar Prasad as published in 1988 2 MPWN 223 was cited before the Court below, who chose not to blindly follow the short noted decision. I appreciate the courage of the learned Judge that he commented on the Short Note and rightly. The learned Judge while rejecting the application for bail said: