DEVILAL Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner apprehended pursuant to investigation into FIR No.177/2016 of Police Station Baap, District Jodhpur Rural, for alleged offence under Sections 8 / 15 , 25 and 29 of the NDPS Act, has preferred this second bail application under Section 439 Cr.P.C.

(2.) The first bail application of the petitioner was dismissed as not pressed on 16th of January 2017.

(3.) Pressing this second bail application, it is argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that now statement of P.W.3 seizure officer, Kishore Singh, has been recorded besides two other motbirs, viz. P.W.1 Mahendra Kumar and P.W.2 Santosh Kumar. It is argued by learned counsel that there are serious contradictions in the statements of motbirs as well as seizure officer. It is submitted by learned counsel that seizure officer has admitted that he had collected contraband from each of the gunny bags containing poppy straw and then mixed it for preparation of two samples. It is submitted by learned counsel that same has violated Standing Instruction No.1.88. It is further argued by learned counsel that from the statements of motbirs, it is clearly discernible that mandatory provisions of Section 42(1) and 42(2) of the Act have not been complied with and furthermore seizure was not in presence of any independent motbir. Learned counsel in support of his arguments has placed reliance on Krishan Chand V/s. State of Himachal Pradesh [2017 Cr.L.R. (SC) 949]. Lastly, learned counsel has contended that conclusion of trial is likely to take substantial time and the petitioner is in custody since 19 th of October, 2016 is yet another mitigating circumstance in the backdrop of facts and circumstance of the case for considering his bail plea favorably.