RAGHUVENDRA S.RATHORE
Dharma @ Dharmi Lal – Appellant
Versus
State – Respondent
Certainly. Based on the provided legal document, here are the key points summarized:
The case involves a second bail application filed by the accused petitioner, primarily on the grounds that the FSL report has been received, indicating the percentage of morphine in the recovered substance is 2.47%, which translates to a total of approximately 49.4 grams, less than the commercial quantity (!) (!) .
The initial bail application was dismissed because 2 kg of opium was recovered from the petitioner while he was traveling on a motorcycle (!) .
The petitioner’s counsel argued that since the FSL report shows a low percentage of morphine, the total quantity of contraband is below the threshold for a commercial quantity, and therefore, bail should be granted (!) .
The prosecution opposed the bail, emphasizing that the percentage of morphine is irrelevant in this context because the substance recovered is opium, which is defined as coagulated juice of the opium poppy, and not a mixture covered under the relevant legal clause (!) (!) .
The legal provisions specify that opium, as coagulated juice, does not require consideration of morphine content for classification, unless it is in the form of a mixture with specified proportions. Since the recovered substance is not a mixture, the morphine percentage is deemed irrelevant (!) (!) .
The relevant legal definitions and notifications distinguish between opium, morphine, and opium derivatives, with specific quantities designated as small and commercial quantities for each substance (!) (!) .
The court's reasoning aligns with the principle that the mere presence of morphine within opium does not alter its classification unless it is part of a mixture as defined under the law. Therefore, the quantity of 2 kg of coagulated opium does not qualify as a commercial quantity, and the content of morphine is not a decisive factor in this context (!) (!) .
The court upheld the previous decision to dismiss the bail application, citing that the substance recovered is opium in terms of the law, and the contention based on the FSL report lacks substance (!) .
The court also directed the trial to be expedited and concluded within six months, emphasizing the importance of timely justice (!) .
Please let me know if you need further analysis or assistance with related legal questions.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that now the FSL report has been received and the percentage of morphine found is 2.47. Therefore, he has submitted that the total quantity of contraband seized from petitioner would be only 49.4 gms. Such quantity is much less than the commercial quantity. Hence, it is prayed that the petitioner be now enlarged on bail. In support of his submission, learned counsel has placed reliance on the case of Biswajit Chandra @ Kanu vs. State of West Bengal, SLP (Cr.) No. 4771/2007 decided on 3.1.2008.
3. The learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the bail application and submitted that so far as the contention of learned counsel for the petitioner in respect of percentage of morphine and proportionate weight of contraband in question is concerned, it would not be the consideration for the purpose
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.