Gopi Ram vs State of Haryana

M.L. Singhal, J.—This is Criminal Misc. Petition No. 17862-M of 1998 filed by Gopi Ram-Petitioner herein whereby he has prayed for bail

in case F.I.R. No. 226 dated 12.5.1998 u/s 20 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985.

Prosecution case in brief is that on 12.5.1998 SI Ram Avtar, SHO Police Station Sadar, Bhiwani was present at �Y� point, Tigrana on

Hansi-Bhiwani Road, along with HC Banwari Lal and HC Dharam Chand and Ors.. Gopi Ram came from the side of Prem Nagar with a jute bag

in his right hand. At the sight of the police party, he turned back and started walking swiftly. It aroused suspicion in the mind of SI/SHO Ram

Avtar. That person gave his name as Gopi Ram, son of Sheoran, resident of Dhanana. SI Ram Avtar felt suspicious about the contents of that jute

bag. He felt that it was containing some narcotic. He served written notice upon him whether the wanted to be searched before any Gazetted

Officer or Magistrate or he agreed to be searched by him. Thereupon, Gopi Ram told him that he could go ahead and conduct his search. SI/SHO

Ram Avtar searched that jute bag and found it containing charas in eight paper envelopes. That charas weighed 1 Kg. 600 grams. That jute bag

was found to contain one iron balance, one weight of the denomination of 2 Kgs,, one weight of the denomination of 200 grams and one weight of

the denomination of 100 grams.

Learned Counsel for the Petitioner has submitted that there has been no compliance of the provisions of Section 50 of the Narcotic Drugs and

Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, inasmuch as S.I. Ram Avtar should have taken him to a Magistrate or a Gazetted Officer if he was really

anxious to comply with these provisions in the interest of fair play and justice. It has been submitted that Legislature has provided very stringent

punishment in the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, namely, 10 years imprisonment and fine of Rs. one lac in the minimum

for these offences. At the same time, to obviate false implication. Legislature has provided certain safeguards to the accused. It has been submitted

that it is debatable whether Petitioner�s alleged refusal to be taken to a Magistrate or Gazetted Officer was genuine or was only manipulation on

the part of SI Ram Avtar. He has� further submitted that in fact, Petitioner had been taken in custody at 6.30 a.m. on 12.5.1998 from his

residence in village Dhanana by S.I. Ram Avtar, SHO Police Station Sadar, Bhiwani and on that very day Petitioner�s nephew Balwan had

made an application to SSP, Bhiwani which was sent through registered A.D. post at about 10.00 a.m. It has been submitted that if the Petitioner

had been taken at 6.00 a.m. and application had been sent to SSP through registered AD post on 12.5.1998 itself, it could be sent only before

3.00 p.m. and as such apprehension of the accused at 5.00 p.m. is false as the time for receiving registered letters in the Post Office is up to 3.00

p.m. It has also been submitted that Balbir, the so called independent witness is in fact a stock witness of the police having been cited in a number

of cases before.

At this stage merits of the submissions made by the Learned Counsel for the Petitioner cannot be considered microscopically. Fact, however,

remains that Section 37 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, stands like a rock against the accused so far as grant of

bail is concerned. Court can allow bail only if it has reasonable feeling that the accused may not have committed the offence and further if the

accused is allowed bail, he will not commit such offence.

Keeping in view the heavy quantity of charas alleged to have been recovered from the possession of the accused, I do not think Petitioner can

wriggle out of the bar created by Section 37 lbid. So this bail application fails and is dismissed.