Pawan Kumar v. State of Himachal Pradesh
Case at a glance
Outcome
Dismissed
application is dismissed
Provisions considered
Key paragraphs
- Para 55. It is the case of the prosecution that Chemical Examiner has opined that the sample is of poppy straw. It has been submitted on behalf of the petitioner that percentage of contraband has not been mentioned in the Chemical Examiner report and, therefore, report…
Judgment
The Hon(cid:146)ble Mr.Justice Kuldip Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1No For the Petitioner: Mr Neeraj Sharma, Advocate. For the respondent: Mr A.K.Bansal, Addl.A.G. Kuldip Singh, Judge (Oral) This is an application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. for releasing the petitioner on bail in F.I.R.No.236 dated 7.10.2006, registered at Police Station, Indora under Section18 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short (cid:145)the Act(cid:146)). The status report has been filed.
Heard and perused the record. The prosecution case in brief is that on 7.10.2006 at about 2.30 p.m. from actual, conscious possession of the petitioner 60 Kgs. Poppy husk concealed in 64 packets in two iron drums lying in the cow shed of the petitioner was recovered. Thereupon, F.I.R. No.236 dated 7.10.2006 was registered at Police Station, Indora. The sample was sent to CFSL Chandigarh. Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes (cid:133)2(cid:133) The challan has been presented on 13.3.2007. The supplementary challan has been submitted on 7.11.2007. The Chemical Examiner in his report has stated that sample is of poppy straw.
In the bail application, it has been stated that the Investigating Officer allegedly mixed the contraband from all the 64 packets and extracted two samples for the purposes of chemical test and the Chemical Examiner opined that the sample contained poppy straw. It has been submitted that there is no evidence that the cow shed, from where the alleged contraband was recovered, is in exclusive possession of the petitioner. It cannot be imagined that all 64 packets contained the contraband. The sample, which was sent for analysis, cannot be taken as representative sample. It was incumbent upon the police to send samples from all 64 packets separately to the Chemical Examiner. The place from where the contraband was recovered was accessible to all and is adjacent to public path. It has been submitted that the report of the Chemical Examiner does not disclose the percentage of contraband in the sample and it is not a legal report in the eyes of law. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner is resident of village Channai, Tehsil Indora and in case he is released on bail, he will not jump the bail, he will comply with the conditions of the bail.
The learned Additional Advocate General has opposed the bail application on the ground that huge quantity of contraband was recovered from the conscious possession of the petitioner. The challan has been presented in the Court and the points which have been raised by the petitioner will be looked into by the trial Court. (cid:133)3(cid:133) Prima facie case under Section 18 of the Act is made out against the petitioner.
Operative part
It is the case of the prosecution that Chemical Examiner has opined that the sample is of poppy straw. It has been submitted on behalf of the petitioner that percentage of contraband has not been mentioned in the Chemical Examiner report and, therefore, report is not in accordance with law. The prosecution has alleged that the contraband was mixed and representative sample was taken. The submission on behalf of the petitioner that it cannot be imagined that 64 packets contained contraband has no force. Prima-facie huge quantity of 60 Kgs poppy husk has been recovered from the conscious possession of petitioner. In case petitioner is released on bail possibility cannot be ruled out that he will commit similar type of offence again and may influence the prosecution witnesses. It is not in public interest to release the petitioner on bail against whom allegations are of possessing 60 Kgs poppy husk. The petitioner earlier filed bail application which was rejected on 9.5.2007. Thereafter, he filed another bail application which has been rejected by learned Sessions Judge, Kangra at Dharamshala on 24.1.2008. No case for grant of bail has been made out. Accordingly, the application is dismissed.
The observations made in the order shall not be construed as expression of opinion on the merits of the case. April 02, 2008 (soni) ( Kuldip Singh ), J.
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: application is dismissed
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 439; Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 — s. 18.
Which court decided this case, and when?
Himachal Pradesh High Court, on 02 Apr 2008. The bench was KULDIP SINGH.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.