RAMDEO Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) - Heard perused the case diary. It appears that on receiving a credible information that petitioner Ramdeo Gujar, resident of village Math, is running a tea stall near the Bus stand, on which Gheesa Ram Gujar sits sells contraband opium and that if a search is made of the said stall, opium can be recovered; Ghewar Chand, SHO, Police Station, Sadar, Pali, alongwith Police party reached the Bus stand of village Math. Ghewar Chand also took with him 'motbirs'. When they reached near the Bus stand, they saw that petitioner Jaswant Singh hastily left the place and started going towards trucks. Thereupon his search was taken and, it is alleged, that 45 gms. of opium was recovered from his possession for which he did not have any licence. Jaswant Singh was arrested. It is alleged that he voluntarily gave information under Sec. 27 of the Evidence Act to the effect that he had purchased the said opium from the tea stall run by Gheesa Ram. Thereupon the tea stall on which Gheesa Ram was sitting, was searched. It is alleged that Gheesa Ram after digging the floor of the tea stall, took out a packet, which contained 170 gms. of opium for which he did not have any licence. Gheesa Ram was also arrested and during interrogation, he disclosed that the owner of the said tea stall was Ramdeo Gujar, but for last 2 months the latter had given it to him for running the said tea stall and that Ramdeo also used to give Rs. 200/- per month to him for selling the opium. Thereupon, the SHO also arrested the petitioner- Ramdeo on the same day. The samples were taken from the opium recovered from Jaswant Singh and Gheesa Ram and sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory for chemical examination and report is still awaited and investigation is going on.

(2.) SHRI Mohanani, learned counsel for petitioner- Ramdeo, has vehemently contended that in this case there is not a shred of evidence to prima facie show that the petitioner-Ramdeo is the owner of the said tea stall and that he indulged in purchasing and selling opium, that the interrogatory statements of co-accused Jaswant Singh and Gheesa Ram are not admissible in evidence and as such there is no reasonable ground to believe that the petitioner has committed any offence punishable under the N. D. P. S. Act or that in future he is likely to commit such offence. The learned P. P. contends that the credible information was to the effect that said tea stall belongs to petitioner Ramdeo and that he indulges in selling the opium. But a careful perusal of the case diary even does not disclose the identity of the source from whom the alleged reliable information was received by the SHO. Co-accused Jaswant Singh and Gheesa Ram were arrested on 11. 7. 1994 immediately after the alleged recovery of opium and thereafter they were interrogated. Thus, those interrogatory statements cannot be deemed to be their statements under Sec. 67 of the N. D. P. S. Act and these cannot be read against the petitioner.

(3.) THE bail petition filed on behalf of petitioner- Jaswant Singh is hereby dismissed. However, he may move fresh bail petition after the statements of motbirs and the officer who effected the alleged recovery from his possession, are recorded by the learned trial Judge. .