SUMAN Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN AND ANOTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned Public Prosecutor for the State and perused the relevant documents placed before me.

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioners argued that no recovery has been made from the petitioners and allegation is that they supplied 2 kg. heroine to co-accused Liyakat. Chemical examination of the laboratory has revealed the percentage of diacetylmorphine contained in 2 kg. powder having only 2.3% density of diacetylmorphine thus having only 46 grams of heroine which is much less than the commercial quantity of 250 gm. Co-accused Rameshwar Lal was also present with accused Liyakat in the vehicle which was being driven by him at the time when the recovery of psychotropic substance was made. Coordinate bench of this Court in bail application No. 1895/2007 vide order dated 24th April, 2007 has granted bail to co-accused Rameshwar Lai, from whose vehicle the recovery was made, vide its order dated 24th April, 2007. Learned counsel argued that while as per the challan, though the principal accused Liyakat is shown to have had previous cases registered against him but there are no such antecedents against either of the accused petitioners. The petitioners are in jail since 21.11.2006. Learned counsel relied on the judgment of Delhi High Court reported In 2006 (1) EFR 212.

(3.) Learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the bail application and argued that density of psychotropic substance cannot be looked into at this stage in as much as the allegation against the accused petitioners is of supplying the psychotropic substance to co-accused Liyakat.