ANIL KUMAR Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is second bail application by Anil Kumar u/s 439 Crimial P.C. The first bail application was rejected on 17th July, 1991. The trial Court was directed to examine Bhagwat Swaroop, S.I. who made the search and seizure of the smack from the possession of the petitioner and it was further directed that his examination by completed within two months.

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner states that so far Bhagwat Swroop, S.I has not been examined by the trial Court and the period of two months has expired. He urges that trial is likely to take time.

(3.) It was also urged by the (illegible) for the petitioner that the seizure of the smack was not witnessed by any independent witnesses and the two attesting witnesses of the seizure memo are Abdul Khalid and Radhey Shyam, who are both constables of police. In such case where deterrent punishment is provided in the act, normally, independent motbirs should be called to witness the search and seizure and to attest the seizure memo. In the case diary, the Investigating Officer has not explained as to why the search and seizure was not witnessed by independent persons, and why only police constables were utilised for the purpose.