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
7 paragraphs · 260 wordsK.S. Kumaran, J.
Heard counsel for both the sides.
Learned Counsel for the petitioner states that the number of the FIR has been mistakenly given a 52 instead of 152 in the index and seeks permission to amend it. Oral request of the learned Counsel for the petitioner is accepted and he is permitted to amend the FIR number as 152.
Learned Counsel for the petitioner contends that the FIR itself indicates that special informer had informed the police that petitionerShingara Singh and another were engaged in selling poppy husk. He contends that the secret information has not been reduced to writing and forwarded to the immediate superior officer immediately. He also contends that the petitioner was not arrested at the spot, and the coaccused who had been arrested from the spot, and from whom poppy husk was allegedly recovered has been released on bail by the court concerned.
The learned Counsel for the State, on the other hand, contends that on the basis of information, the FIR has been registered, and thereafter only poppy husk was recovered. But the provisions of Section 42 of the NDPS Act required that the officer who gets a special information shall record it and forward the same immediately to the superior officer, and that has not been done in this case.
In these circumstances, without meaning to express any opinion on the merits of the main case, the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail on his furnishing sufficient surety to the satisfaction of C.J.M. Patiala.
Application allowed.