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
4 paragraphs · 249 wordsM.L. Singhal, J.—Heard.
According to the prosecution, 4 kgs. and 200 grams of poppy-husk was recovered from the possession of the accused-Petitioner on 14th December, 1998. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner submits that this recovery is not witnessed by any independent witness. He further submits that there has been no compliance with the provisions of Section 50 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act. 1985 by ASI Bharpoor Singh. According to the prosecution, the offer made to the accused was that if he wanted, he could be searched by him and he opted in favour of a Gazetted Officer and thereupon, Shri Gurmit Singh Randhawa, DSP Abohar reached the spot. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner submits that the offer made should have been that if he wanted, he could be searched in the presence of a Magistrate or a Gazetted Officer and if this offer had been made to the accused, he could have opted either in favour of a Gazetted Officer of some other department or in favour of a Magistrate. He submits that search in the presence of a Magistrate would have lent greater assurance to the genuineness of the search.
He submits that as things are, the recovery rests on the statements of ASI Bharpoor Singh and DSP Gurmit Singh Randhawa. etc. who are police officials.
Without going much into these submissions. I feel that bail should be allowed to the Petitioner. So, bail to him to the satisfaction of C.J.M., Ferozepur.