BALVINDER SINGH Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Accused-petitioners have laid this third bail application arising out of FIR No. 357/2016, registered at Police Station Sujangarh, District Churu, wherein both of them are charged for offence punishable under Sec. 8 read with Ss. 15 and 25 of the NDPS Act.

(2.) First bail application of petitioners was dismissed on 23/10/2017 by a detailed order. Subsequently, while considering second bail plea of the petitioners, the same was dismissed as not pressed with liberty to renew the prayer afresh after recording statements of Seizure Officer.

(3.) Arguing on this third bail application, it is submitted by learned counsel that now during trial statements of Seizure Officer-Ram Narayan, have been recorded as PW1. It is further submitted by learned counsel that both the petitioners are in custody since 29/12/2016 and so far the trial has not materially progressed inasmuch as only one witness has been examined. It is also submitted by learned counsel that as per prosecution, in all 68 kgs. poppy straw was recovered, which was stuffed in 136 bags and at the time of drawl of sample a small quantity of the poppy straw was taken from each bag and thereafter the same was mixed and samples were drawn of 250 gm each. It is submitted by learned counsel that drawl of samples was per se laconic and against the Standing Instruction No. 1/88 issued by Narcotics Control Bureau, New Delhi. Learned counsel has further submitted that this laconic procedure of drawl of sample has adverse effect on the entire prosecution case so far indictment of the petitioners for the charged offences is concerned. In support of his arguments, learned counsel for the petitioners has placed reliance on a judgment in case of Netram v. State of Rajasthan reported in 2014 (1) Cr.L.R.(Raj) 163.