Karu Lal vs State of Punjab

Mehinder Singh Sullar, J.—A copy of the report dated 07.10.2013 of the Central Forensic Science Laboratory Chandigarh, (Annexure "PX") filed by the learned State Counsel today in the Court, is taken on record. Petitioner-Karu Lal son of Dharam Ram Ji, resident of village Rana Kheri, Abjalpur, District Mansor (M.P.) presently confined in the District Jail, Chittorgarh (M.P.)(as per memo of parties), has preferred the instant petition for the grant of regular bail in a case registered against him along with his other co-accused, vide FIR No. 100 dated 11.07.2012 (Annexure P-1), on accusation of having committed an offence punishable u/s 18 of, The Narcotics Drugs & Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter to be referred as "the NDPS Act), by the police of Police Station Shambhu, District Patiala, invoking the provisions of Section 439 Cr.P.C.

Notice of the petition was issued to the State.

After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, going through the record with their valuable help and after considering the entire matter deeply, to my mind, there is no merit in the present petition in this context.

EX FACIE, the arguments of the learned counsel that, the preparation recovered from the possession of the petitioner was not opium as defined u/s 2(xv), no offence under NDPS Act is made out and since, he was falsely implicated in this case, so, he is entitled to the concession of regular bail, are not only devoid of merit but misplaced as well.

In the instant case, the prosecution claimed that on 11.07.2012, having completed all the statutory formalities of the NDPS Act and Rules framed thereunder and in the wake of search, 10 kg. opium was recovered from the possession of the petitioner. Sequelly, 10 kg. opium was recovered from Vinay Kumar and 5 kg. opium & 100 gms. smack were recovered from Randhir Singh, co-accused of the petitioner, without any permit or license. On the basis of indicated heavy recovery of commercial quantity, the present criminal case was registered against them, in the manner depicted here-in-above.

As is evident from the record that, the petitioner has sought the concession of bail, mainly, on the ground that as per report (Annexure P-2) of the Assistant Chemical Examiner, Punjab, the preparation recovered from his possession only contained 0.10% Morphine, so, it is not covered under the definition of opium, as contemplated u/s 2(xv) of the NDPS Act. At the first instance, this contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner appeared to be somewhat attractive, but during the course of hearing of the petition, learned State Counsel has submitted that having raised some serious doubts with regard to the validity and genuineness of the chemical report (Annexure P-2), the investigating officer has already moved an application in the Court of Special Judge, for re-sampling and re-testing the samples from the Central Forensic Science Laboratory, Chandigarh (for short "CFSL").

Therefore, taking into consideration the genuine suspicion about the validity of the report (Annexure P-2), the Director of CFSL, was directed to chemically examine the fresh samples under his personal supervision, by this Court by virtue of order dated August 27, 2013.

In compliance thereof, the CFSL re-examined and re-tested the samples and concluded in its report (Annexure "PX") that all the three samples contained Morphine to the extent of 4.18%, 3.07% and 4.13% (instead of 0.10%, 0.14% and 0.16% as mentioned in the report (Annexure P-2). Meaning thereby, the petitioner has procured the false chemical report (Annexure P-2), in order to illegally secure the benefit of bail. There appears to be no cogent reason to disbelieve the report (Annexure "PX") of the CFSL, at this stage. In this manner, in view of the contents of Morphine contained in the report (Annexure "PX") of CFSL, the preparation recovered from the possession of the petitioner indeed was an opium as defined under the NDPS Act. Therefore, the petitioner being guilty of the indicated manipulation, is not at all entitled to discretionary relief of bail.

Not only that, otherwise also once it is proved that the pointed commercial quantity of opium was recovered from the possession of the petitioner & his other co-accused and the provision of Section 37 of the NDPS Act, are fully attracted, in that eventuality, the petitioner is not at all entitled to the concession of bail, as contrary urged on his behalf. In the light of aforesaid reasons and without commenting further anything on merits, lest it may prejudice the case of either side during the course of trial, as there is no merit, therefore, the instant petition for regular bail filed by the petitioner is hereby dismissed in the obtaining circumstances of the case.

Needless to mention that nothing observed, here-in-above, would reflect, in any manner, on merits of the main case, as the same has been so recorded for a limited purpose of deciding the present petition for regular bail only.