RAM CHANDER @ TIT Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a petition under section 439 Cr.P.C. read with section 37 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) for grant of regular bail to the petitioner in case F.I.R. No. 534 dated 14.11.1997 under Section 20 of the Act, Police Station Sadar, Rohtak.

(2.) AS per prosecution case, on a tip off from an informer, a raid was conducted. Petitioner was apprehended in his village at Bohar. On his personal search, charas weighing 10 grams was recovered from the right pocket of his shirt on 14.11.1997. He was arrested and case F.I.R. No. 534 dated 14.11.1997 under Section 20 of the Act was registered against him. He applied for bail before the Additional Sessions Judge, Rohtak, who declined the same vide order dated 5.12.1997, which led him to file the present petition which has been resisted by the learned State Counsel.

(3.) IT was argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner that in view of the provisions of sub -section (2) of section 42 of the Act, the Assistant Sub Inspector concerned, on receipt of information in writing under sub -section (1) and after recording grounds of his belief under the proviso thereto, he was required to send a copy thereof forthwith to his immediate superior official but in the instant case, there is nothing to show that the provisions of sub -section (2) of section 42 of the Act were complied with by the Investigating Officer. It was further argued that it is admitted case that at the time of arrest of the accused, many persons had collected there but no independent witness was joined to attest the recovery of the incriminating charas from the possession of the petitioner. On asking by the Court, the learned Assistant Advocate General, Haryana could not point out that the provisions of sub -section (2) of section 42 of the Act were complied with by the Investigating Officer or an independent witness was joined in the investigation to attest the alleged recovery from the possession of the petitioner. In the facts and circumstances so stated, I am of the view that sufficient grounds, are made out to release the petitioner on bail.