AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Anoop Chitkara, J
Status report filed.
The petitioner for possessing commercial quantity of charas measuring 5 Kg., has come up before this Court seeking regular bail.
Mr. Mani Kaul, learned counsel for the petitioner argues, firstly that the investigator officer is not an empowered officer and his second contention is that Sections 43 and 67 of the NDPS Act have been violated. He further submits that Section 29 has been incorporated, which shows absence of direct possession.
I have gone through the petition as well as status report.
It is a case where police on chance recovery, recovered charas from the bag, which was lying between two persons sitting on a rock. Case of the police is that on seeing the police, they became perplexed, which raised suspicion and led to search and consequent recovery of charas. Section 50 has no application in this case because recovery is not from a person.
Arguments of the learned counsel that once the police had searched the persons, it amounts to violation of Section 50 of the Act, has no bearing at the time of bail application.
Second argument about Section 43 of the Act is also not credible because the recovery is from the public place. Regarding the third argument of Section 67 of the Act, the police has not arrested them based of statement under Section 67 of the Act, but on direct possession.
Given above, there is no merit in the present bail petition and the same is dismissed as such. Needless to say observations made above will not be considered for any other purpose.