The Court accepted a bail application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. in an NDPS matter. Ruling without adjudicating the merits, the Court granted bail by keeping open the question of the Prosecution's right to send a second sample for analysis without specific grounds.
Bail granted to the satisfaction of the CJM/Duty Magistrate, Ludhiana.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
-1-
Crl.M.No.M-13661 of 2010 (O&M)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH.
Crl.M.No.M-13661 of 2010 (O&M) Date of Decision: July 22, 2010
Samim
.....Petitioner
v.
State of Punjab
.....Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAM CHAND GUPTA
Present: Mr.Raj Kumar Gupta, Advocate for the petitioner.
Ms.Bhavna Gupta, DAG, Punjab.
RAM CHAND GUPTA, J.(Oral)
The present petition filed under Section 439 Cr.P.C. is for grant of regular bail to the petitioner in case FIR No.156, dated 3.11.2009, under Sections 22/25/61/85 of NDPS Act, registered at Police Station Machhiwara.
I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the whole record carefully.
It has been contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that the alleged article recovered from the possession of the petitioner-accused has been found to be Sodium Thiosulphate on analysis by a Public Analyst and it has been specifically mentioned by Public Analyst that on the basis of analysis no common narcotic and psychotropic substance could be detected in the content of the parcel. Hence, it is contended that no offence has been committed by the petitioner under NDPS Act. It is further contended that he has been continuing in custody since 3.11.2009 and that even challan has not been filed so far on the plea that second sample has been sent for analysis to some other laboratory. However, it has been stated that there is no provision in NDPS Act for sending second sample and more over, there is no ground for the prosecution to have sent the second sample as the previous one was analysed by a Public Analyst to whom the sample was
-2-
Crl.M.No.M-13661 of 2010 (O&M)
sent by prosecution itself. On this point he has also placed reliance upon judgment rendered by a coordinate Bench of this Court in Jarmanjit Singh and another v. State of Punjab 2003(2) RCR (Criminal).
Bail application has been opposed by learned State counsel on the plea that as per order of learned Special Judge, Ludhiana, second sample has been sent to another laboratory, i.e., Central Laboratory and, however, report of that Laboratory has not been received. Learned State counsel has also placed reliance upon State of Kerala v. Deepak 2001(3) RCR (Criminal) 216.
However, it is not a case that the sample, which was initially sent to Public Analyst had been lost, destroyed or there is any other special reason for getting the second sample analysed from Central Laboratory. The second sample has been ordered to be sent by learned Special Judge, merely, on the ground that recovery is a heavy one.
Hence, in view of these facts and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, at this stage, and by keeping the point as to whether prosecution is having right to send second sample for examination to Central Laboratory without any specific ground, open, the present petition filed by petitioner -Samim for grant of regular bail is accepted.
Bail to the satisfaction of CJM/Duty Magistrate, Ludhiana.
(Ram Chand Gupta) Judge
22.7.2010 meenu
2 issues framed by the court
Whether bail should be granted despite the Prosecution's submission that a second sample was sent for analysis.
Whether the Prosecution requires specific grounds to send a second sample to a Central Laboratory.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Jarmanjit Singh and another v. State of PunjabReferred¶19
Jarmanjit Singh and another v. State of Punjab 2003(2) RCR (Criminal)
State of Kerala v. DeepakReferred¶20
State of Kerala v. Deepak 2001(3) RCR (Criminal) 216
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Samim
State of Punjab
Ram Chand Gupta
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
