GURCHARAN SINGH ALIAS CHANNA Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD . According to the prosecution, 8 kgs. of poppy husk was recovered from the possession of the accused on 24.1.99. According to the prosecution, this recovery was witnessed by one Makhan Ram. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the witnessing of the recovery by Makhan Ram is doubtful as if he had been present at the spot at the time of recovery, seal after use, in all probability, would have been handed over to him, whereas, as per the prosecution, seal after use was handed over to HC Inder Singh. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that there has been no compliance with the provisions of section 50 of the Narcotic Drugs & Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 inasmuch as if ASI Ram Chander had meant at their compliance in true perspective, he would have taken him to a gazetted officer or a Magistrate for search and, no wonder, declining to be taken to a gazetted officer or Magistrate by the accused was a manipulation and not a reality. He further submits that as the facts are, the recovery of poppy husk is witnessed by ASI Ram Chander etc. who are lower rung police officials and the court may not be able to sentence the accused to 10 years RI and fine of Rs. 1 lac in the minimum on their testimony. Without dilating much on these submissions, I feel bail should be allowed to the petitioner. So, bail to him to the satisfaction of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sirsa. Petition allowed.