KOUSHAL KUMAR Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned Public Prosecutor and perused the material available on record.

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that after rejection of first bail application of the petitioner, statements of Satpal Singh, Seizure Officer PW-1 have been recorded before the trial court. It is submitted that as per the prosecution story, 7 packets in which 1008 Spasmu Proxyvon Plus capsules containing narcotic contraband Tromadol were recovered from the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that Seizure Officer had committed serious discrepancies in collecting the sample of capsule recovered from the petitioner. It is argued that separate sample from each packet allegedly recovered from the petitioner was not collected and out of 7 packets, the Seizure Officer collected only samples from one packet. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also submitted that from the statement of Satpal, Seizure Officer PW-1, this fact is clearly established that no separate sample from each packet was taken by him. It is also argued that neither the control sample D-1 was produced before the trial court nor the articles were opened before it. Learned counsel for the petitioner has, therefore, argued that in view of serious discrepancies in collection of sample as is evident from the statement of Seizure Officer, it is clear that the prosecution would not be subjected to prove the guilt of the petitioner regarding transportation or possession of narcotic contraband Tromadol above commercial quantity. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that taking into consideration the above facts and circumstances of the case, the petitioner is entitled to be enlarged on bail.

(3.) Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor has vehemently opposed the bail application and submitted that whether there was any discrepancy in collection of sample by the Seizure Officer is the matter of evidence and the prosecution evidence so far produced before the trial court is sufficient to prove that there was no illegality in collecting the samples of narcotic contraband by the prosecution, therefore, the petitioner is not entitled to be enlarged on bail.