Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH
Pankaj Bhandari, J.
Robin Shergil@taramasih - Appellant
Versus
State Of Rajasthan - Respondent
Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 1678 of 2021
Decided on : 04-03-2021
Seizure Memo - NDPS Act - The court dismissed the bail application based on the variance in the weight of the control sample and the timing discrepancies in the preparation of the seizure memo and destruction of the seal memo. The court also considered the commercial quantity of contraband involved and the competency of the Sub-inspector to conduct the search.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner filed a bail application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. for an offence under Sections 8 & 15 of NDPS Act. The seizure memo mentioned the destruction of the seal at a different time than the actual memo for destruction of the seal. There was also a variance in the weight of the control sample.
Finding of the Court:
The court dismissed the bail application, considering the contentions put forth by the State and the commercial quantity of contraband involved.
Issues: Competency of the Sub-inspector to conduct the search, variance in the weight of the control sample, and the timing discrepancies in the preparation of the seizure memo and destruction of the seal memo.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was influenced by the timing discrepancies in the preparation of the seizure memo and destruction of the seal memo, as well as the commercial quantity of contraband involved.
Final Decision: The bail application was dismissed, with the petitioner being free to move a fresh bail application after the recording of the statement of Seizure Officer.
JUDGMENT
Pankaj Bhandari, J. - Petitioner has filed this bail application under Section 439 Cr.P.C.
2. F.I.R. No.298/2020 was registered at Police Station Chirawa, District Jhunjhunu for offence under Sections 8 & 15 of NDPS Act.
3. It is contended by counsel for the petitioner that seizure memo was prepared at 6:40 pm. In the seizure memo, it was mentioned that the seal has been destroyed, whereas memo for destruction of the seal was prepared at 8:20 pm. There is variance in the weight of the control sample. It is also contended that the Sub-inspector was not competent to conduct the search.
4. Learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the bail application. It is contended that the matter pertains to commercial quantity of contraband. At this stage, it cannot be held that petitioner is not guilty and that he will not repeat the offence while on bail.
5. I have considered the contentions.
6. Considering the contentions put forth by counsel for the State, I am not inclined to entertain bail application.
7. This bail application is, accordingly, dismissed.
8. However, petitioner would be free to move fresh bail application after recording of the statement of Seizure Officer.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
