AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Anoop Chitkara, J
Status report filed.
The petitioner, who is in custody for possessing 2.70 Kg. of charas, has come up before this Court seeking regular bail.
Mr. Balram Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner, argued that independent witness PW-7, Bhagat Ram, did not support the case of the prosecution. He has further drawn the attention of this Court to the photographs to show that the spot is not an isolated place.
I have gone through the petition as well as status report.
A perusal of the statement of PW-5, Constable Ved Ram, reveals that it was a case of recovery from the possession of the petitioner, Gian Parsad. Although, PW -5 is a police official, but his testimony cannot be disbelieved at this stage of a bail.
Given above, there is no merit in the present petition and the same is dismissed as such.
The judgment so relied upon by learned counsel for the petitioner in Umarmia Alias Mamunia vs. State of Gujarat (2017) 2 SSC 731, refers to Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, and has no application with the NDPS Act.
The petition is dismissed.