- (1.) HEARD, Perused the challan papers.
(2.) IT is alleged that on 28. 4. 1993, 10. 900 kg. opium was recovered from the attachee case, which the petitioner Ratan Lal was carrying in a bus and for which he had no permit/licence. The petitioner was arrested and a case under Section 8/18 of the N. D. P. S. Act was registered against him. After investigation a charge-sheet has been filed in the court of learned Special Judge N. D. P. S. Act Cases (Sessions Judge), Banswara. The Petitioner's bail application has been rejected by the learned Special Judge by his order dated 8. 06. 1993. The main contention of Shri B. N. Kalla is that the chemical report of the samples alleged to have been taken from the recovered contraband article has not been received as yet and as such it can not be said that the seized article was opium, and therefore, the petitioner should be released on bail. He has placed reliance on the case of Dhanji Bhai vs. State (1 ). I have gone through the judgment of the aforementioned case and the facts thereof are clearly distinguishable. In that case, smack was recovered from the possession of the accused and the chemical report from the F. S. L. was not received at the time of filing of the challan papers. Hence a learned Single Bench, of Jaipur Bench granted bail. In the instant case, a perusal of the recovery memo shows that at the time of the alleged recovery the opium was tasted and smelt by the motbirs and the officers, who had conducted the recovery and it was testified by them that the recovered article was opium. This fact has also been mentioned in the seizure memo itself. Of course for a conclusive finding the chemical report will be necessary. The sealed samples were received in the F. S. L. on 2. 5. 1993 and its report is awaited and no inordinate time has elapsed. Therefore at this stage there exist valid grounds for a reasonable belief that the recovered article was opium, for which the petitioner had no valid licence. Hence it can be inferred that the petitioner has committed the offence under section 8/18 of the N. D. P. S. Act. Therefore, keeping in view the provisions of Section 37 of the N. D. P. S. Act, it is not at all a fit case, wherein the petitioner should be released on bail. Mr. B. N. Kalla has next contended that the petitioner has a right to speedy trial as enshrined under Art. 21 of the Constitution of India. For this he has placed reliance on the case of Angrej Singh vs. State of Rajasthan, (2), wherein the learned Judge of the Jaipur Bench has referred the matter for consideration by a Larger Bench for its authoritative decision on the following controversy : - "whether an accused facing trial of an offence punishable for a term of imprisonment for 5 years or more under the N. D. P. S. Act can be released on bail by the Special Court or by the High Court on the ground of delay in trial inspite of the limitations prescribed by Section 37 (1) (b) of the Act?" Since as yet no larger Bench has been constituted and no authoritative pronouncement has been given, this case renders little assistance to the petitioner. Moreover, in the instant case the alleged offence took place on 28. 4. 1993 and the trial is going on. Hence it is not a case of delayed or protracted trial.
(3.) IN view of the above, I dismiss this bail petition. .;