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 · 274 wordsM.L. Singhal, J.
Heard. According to the prosecution, 25 kgs. of poppy husk was recovered from the possession of the petitioner on 8.8.1998. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that this recovery is not witnessed by any independent witness. He further submits that according to the prosecution, SI Surjit Chand SHO PS Sidhwan Bet who effected this recovery made this offer to the accused that if he wanted, some gazetted officer or Magistrate could be called before his search was effected and the accused consented to some gazetted officer or Magistrate being called at the spot (JIS NE KIHA KE BULLA LAVVO). Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that if the response to the accused was ambiguous to the officer alleged to have been made, offer should have been made clear to him or if SI Surjit Chand were to be fair to the accused, he should have sent for some Magistrate or gazetted officer of some other department and not Shri Ashok Puri, DSP Jagraon. He submits that this recovery was allegedly effected by SI Surjit Chand, SHO PS Sidhwan Bet. PS Sidhwan Bet falls in Jagraon circle headed by DSP Shri Ashok Puri and DSP Ashok Puri and SI Surjit Chand would be interested in seeing the success of the recovery effected by them. He further submits that as the things are, the recovery rests on the statements of SI Surjit Chand etc. who are police officials.
Without going deep into these submissions, I feel that bail should be allowed to the petitioner. So, bail to him to the satisfaction of Judge, Special Court, Ludhiana constituted under the NDPS Act.