AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
No AI summary yet
Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.
Judgment
3 paragraphs · 236 wordsM.L. Singhal, J.
According to the prosecution, 490 grms. of opium was recovered from the possession of the accused on 2.8.1998. According to the prosecution, this recovery was witnessed by one Gurcharan Singh. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that if Gurcharan Singh PW had been really present at the spot at the time of recovery, seal after use, in all probability, would have been handed over to him whereas seal after use was handed over to ASI Darshan Singh. He further submits that if the prosecution case is doubtful on this count, there can be no guarantee that this recovery was witnessed by Shri Brij Mohan Sarup, DSP (D) Bhatinda. He further submits that if ASI Darshan Singh had been fair to the accused and earnest in complying with the provisions of section 50 of the Narcotic Drugs & Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 in its true perspective, he would have taken the accused to a Magistrate for search as at Bhatinda, there is no dearth of Magistrates. He further submits that although the petitioner has been in jail for the last about 8 months, trial has not made any headway at all and the detention of the accusedpetitioner as an undertrial should not degenerate into being punitive.
Without going much into these submissions, I feel bail should be allowed to the petitioner. So, bail to him to the satisfaction of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bhatinda.