AMIT Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Amit, petitioner accused seeks bail in case bearing FIR No. 138 dated 14.4.2001 registered under Sec. 18 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') with Police Station Chandni Bag, District Panipat.

(2.) The accusation against the petitioner-accused is that on 14.4.2001, Sub-Inspector Dharambir Singh alongwith other members of the Police party were present near N.F.L. Factory, Panipat in the area of Vikas Nagar. He received a secret information against the petitioner and his co-accused Gulab Singh, regarding their engagement in the sale of opium and that on that day they were coming from the side of Rajasthan in Maruti Car No. DL-20-5617 while carrying opium with them. On receipt of this information, a ruqa was drawn and sent to the police station for the registration of the case. After some time, the car in question came from the side of the Delhi. It was intercepted. Personal search of the petitioner-accused and his co-accused was carried out which led to the recovery of 2 Kgs of opium tied below the chest of the accused. Similarly 2 Kgs of opium was also recovered from under the clothes of his co- accused. The search was conducted in the presence of Sh. K.K. Amrohi, District Revenue Officer, Panipat (Executive Magistrate) and recovery proceedings were completed by the Investigating Officer.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner, while pressing for bail has contended before me that co-accused of the petitioner Gulab Singh has been admitted to bail in case bearing Crl. Misc. No. 4173-M of 2001 vide order dated 29.1.2002 passed by this Court and the case of the petitioner is on the same footing. This factual position has not been disputed from the side of the State. It has also not been disputed by the State Counsel that recovery of 2Kgs of opium is not of commercial quantity in terms of the notification dated 19.10.2001 issued by the Central Government and therefore, recording of finding envisaged under Sec. 37 of the Act is not a sine qua non for granting bail. The petitioner-accused has been in custody since 14.4.2001.