RAM PYARI ALIAS BANGRO Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) According to the prosecution, Rajbir Singh informed the police during the course of the investigation in another case that 800 grams of opium was purchased by him from Bangro alias Ram Pyari, the petitioner- herein, and that she is seller of opium. On the basis of this information, according to the prosecution, the raiding party reached village Sahuwala, associated Bhola Singh an independent witness and reached the house of the petitioner at village Sahuwala. The petitioner who was at the main gate of the house, on enquiry gave her name. She was informed that she was selling opium and was given the offer to be searched in the presence of some Gazetted Officer or a Magistrate. A written notice was given to her in this behalf and she desired to be searched in the presence of some Gazetted Officer of the Police the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Sirsa, was summoned through telephone and in his presence the house of the petitioner was searched. From the manger one Kg. of opium was recovered after removing a brick. Two samples were taken and the sample and the reminder were taken into sealed packets.

(2.) The petitioner, who was arrested, moved an application under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for bail before the Learned Sessions Judge, Sirsa who declined the relief on the ground that the petitioner was already involved in another case under the N.D.P.S. Act which is still pending against her, and that there is nothing to show either that the accused is not guilty of the offence alleged herein or that she is not likely to commit any such offence if released on bail. That is why the petitioner has approached this Court under Section 439 Cr. P.C. for the grant of bail. The bail application is opposed by the State counsel.

(3.) I have heard the counsel for the both the sides and perused the record on file. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the house of the petitioner was allegedly searched on the basis of a secret information allegedly received by the police and, therefore, the police should have reduced it into writing, which they had not done. He also contends that the seal used for sealing the packets containing the contraband and the sample were not given to the independent witness who was allegedly present. On these grounds, the learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the investigation and the prosecution are vitiated and, therefore, the petitioner is entitled to bail. But this is a case where the learned Sessions Judge, has pointed out that there is already a case under the N.D.P.S. Act pending against the petitioner-accused, and in these circumstances, it cannot be said that the petitioner is not guilty of the offence alleged herein or that she is not likely to commit any such offence, if she is released on bail. In these circumstances, I am of the view that the learned Sessions Judge has declined the relief of bail to the petitioner taking into consideration the provisions of Section 37(1)(b)(ii) of the N.D.P.S. Act which provides that no person accused of an offence punishable for a term of imprisonment for five years or more under this Act shall be released on bail unless the Court is satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for believing that he is not guilty of such offence and is not likely to commit such offence while on bail. According to the prosecution, the petitioner has committed an offence under Section 18 of tile NDPS Act also which is punishable with the imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than ten years. Therefore, I am also of the view that the petitioner is not entitled to the relief of bail.