JUDGMENT - SINHA D.D., J.:---Heard Shri Patwardhan, learned Counsel for the applicants, and Shri Dhote, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the non-applicant.

2. The present criminal application is moved by the applicants under section 439 of Code of Criminal Procedure for grant of regular bail for the offences punishable under sections 20, 22 and 25 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985.

3. Shri Patwardhan, learned Counsel for the applicants, submits that the applicants are permanent residents of Ramtek, District Nagpur. The applicant No. 1 is dealing in business of travels and owns and possesses one Maruti Van bearing Registration No. MH-29/C-250. The applicant No. 2 is working as driver with the applicant No. 1. The Maruti Van owned by the applicant No. 1 was hired by one Rajesh Roy for the purposes of going to Andhra Pradesh for his work and the said vehicle was returning back on 23-6-2001. On that day, Police Officials of Pandharkawada Police Station, District Yavatmal received information that ganja was being transported in the said vehicle. The Police Officials made arrangement for search of the vehicle and during the course of search of the vehicle, ganja worth 100 kgs., which was kept in gunny bags, was seized from the vehicle. On 23-6-2001, offences under sections 20, 22 and 25 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 were registered vide Crime No. 3122/2001 against the applicants and they were arrested. On 24-6-2001, both the applicants were produced before the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Pandharkawada and they were remanded to police custody.

4. It is contended by the learned Counsel for the applicants that samples were drawn from Ganja which was seized on 23-6-2001 and same were sent to the chemical analyser for necessary analysis at Nagpur on 26-6-2001. Investigation was carried out by the police. On 4-8-2001, police filed charge-sheet in the Court in the absence of necessary relevant documents including Chemical Analysers report. It is further contended by the learned Counsel that on 4-8-2001 though the applicants were present in the Court, necessary documents under sections 42, 50 and 57 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act as well as copy of chemical analysers report were not supplied to the applicants as required under section 207 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and matter was adjourned twice at the request of the prosecution. It is submitted that charge-sheet was filed on 4-8-2001, but all the above documents, were not supplied to the applicants, which is inconsistent with the procedure contemplated under section 207 of the Code. On 12-9-2001, for the first time, the applicants were supplied copy of charge-sheet and that too, without the aforesaid documents. It is contended that though the report of chemical analyser was received by the Police Station Officer, Pandharkawada on 11-8-2001, no steps were taken by the police to forward it to the Court at Yavatmal.

5. The learned Counsel for the applicants further submits that the applicants moved First Application bearing No. 240/2001 for grant of regular bail on merits. However, the same was rejected by the Special Judge. On 31-10-2001, the applicants moved another application bearing No. 382/2001 seeking their release on bail in view of provisions of section 167(2) of the Code since prosecution failed to file charge-sheet/report contemplated under section 173(2) and (5) of the Code within a period of ninety days from the date of first remand, i.e. 24-6-2001 and they were entitled to be released on bail.

6. It is contended by the learned Counsel for the applicants that since the offences registered against the applicants are punishable for the term, which may extend to five years and fine in case of section 20 of the Act and rigorous imprisonment for a term, which shall not be less than ten years, but which may extend to twenty years and fine for the offences punishable under sections 22 and 25

Click Here to Read the rest of this document