GOPAL LAL JAT Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The instant bail application has been filed by the petitioner Gopal Lal Jat S/o Balu Ram under Sec. 439 Cr.P.C against the order impugned passed by learned court below in connection with FIR No.29/2019, registered at Police Station Shivpura, District Pali, for the offences under Ss. 8/15 and 25 of NDPS Act and Sec. 472 of IPC.

(2.) Briefly stated, the facts of the instant case are that a car was intercepted by the police at the time of 'nakabandi' on 'marwar chauraha jadan' on 2/4/2019 at about 07:36 P.M. The vehicle was found lying in an abandoned condition as the suspect got flustered after spotting the police at the 'nakabandi'. Upon suspicion, the police officers searched the vehicle and during search, total 10 bags of poppy husk were found in the car containing a total of 148.400 kilograms of Poppy husk which was seized by the police and the seizing officer took one kilogram of poppy husk from each bag for sampling respectively; all the samples of one kilogram each collected from separate bags were mixed together in a single bag and thereafter, two samples of one kilogram each were taken from the aforesaid admixture.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that a false case has been foisted against the petitioner and the mandatory provisions of NDPS Act have not been complied with, thus, the complete recovery, as alleged, has been vitiated on this count alone. Samples from each of the ten plastic bags were drawn for testing, however, those samples were mixed together and thereafter, two samples of one kilogram each were sent for FSL. Since samples from each of the bags were not separately sent for testing, it cannot be said with utmost certainty that each of the bags contained contraband poppy husk and that the quantity of the recovered contraband is 148.400 kilograms. Neither the petitioner was present on the spot nor any recovery has been affected from him. The case of prosecution that the vehicle was intercepted in an abandoned condition, nobody was present there. There is not an iota of evidence to show or suggest the complicity of the petitioner in commission of the crime. He has nothing to do with the alleged offences and no useful purpose would be served by keeping him behind the bars.