HAIJIT SINGH Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard. According to the prosecution, 20 bags each containing 10 grams of opium was recovered from the possession of the petitioner on 25.10.98. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that each bag of the opium was separate unit in itself but the prosecution sent only one bag of opium for analysis which means that the other bags of opium have remained unanalysed. He submits that it is as if only bag of opium containing 10 grams was recovered from the possession of the petitioner if the prosecution case is presumed to be correct. Learned counsel further submits that there has been no real compliance with the provisions of Section 50 of the Narcotic Drugs & Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 as the signatures of Tehsildar, Shahbad figure on the statement of the petitioner whereupon he was called upon to State whether he opted in favour of a Gazetted Officer or a Magistrate. He submits that if Tehsildar was already therewith ASI Harpal Singh, asking him whether he opted in favour of Gazetted Officer or Magistrate for search was only a ritual. He further submits that witnessing of this recovery by Angrej Singh cannot be believed as if Angrej Singh 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 seal after use was handed over to HC Om Pal.

(2.) Without going much into these submissions, I feel bail should be allowed to the petitioner. So, bail to him to the satisfaction of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kurukshetra.