RATHORE, J. - (1.) HEARD learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on record.
(2.) THE learned counsels for the petitioners have referred to the First Information Report, lodged in this case, on 7. 9. 2007. It is submitted that out of 160 bags of opium (poppy husk) seized from the dickey of the car, only one bag has been sent as a sample for testing to the Forensic Science Laboratory. Further it is submitted that when the prosecution has sent only one bag, weighting about 1 Kg. then, it should be taken that the petitioners were in possession of contraband only of that quantity. THErefore, it is submitted that 1 Kg. Opium is a small quantity as prescribed under the Act. It has also been submitted that there is violation of Section 42 of the NDPS Act. THE counsel for the accused Guru Iqbal Singh has, in support of his submissions, placed reliance on the cases of Gaunter Edwin Kircher vs. State of Goa, Secretariat Panaji, Goa (1993) 3 SCC 145 and Sarija Banu (A) Janarthani & Anr. vs. State Through Inspector of Police, 2006 Cr. L. R. (SC) 49. The learned counsel for the accused Sukhdeep Singh has submitted that he was only a driver and he had no concern with the alleged offence under the NDPS Act. In support of his submission, he placed reliance on the case of Sukh Ram vs. State of Rajasthan, 2003 (1) R. Cr. D. 83 (Raj. ). The learned Public Prosecutor has seriously opposed the bail applicants, also in view of the large quantity of contraband and he has supported the order impugned passed by the learned court below on 12. 3. 2008. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the rival submissions made by the parties. Broadly speaking, the prosecution case is that on 7. 9. 2007, one Indica Car met with an accident and two persons were sitting near it. On having received the said information, Shri Bajrang Lal, ASI, along with other police personnel proceeded to that place. The said car was found on the spot without any registration plates. The two persons, sitting beside the car, were Guru Iqbal Singh and Sukhdeep Singh. On inquiry, it was found that Sukhdeep Singh was driving the vehicle and on account of short spell of slip, he lost control of the vehicle which collided with the divider and overturned. In the dickey of the car plastic bags, number to 160, were found and they were containing opium (crushed poppy straws ). After lodging of the report, the Superintendent of Police ordered on 8. 9. 07 at about 3 am. for SHO, Police Station Nasirabad Sadar, Shri Arun Ram to investigate the matter. A report sent to S. P. Ajmer by SHO, Shri Nagar is also on record with the challan. On the conclusion of the investigation, a challan came to be filed on 14. 2. 2008. During the course of investigation, the seizure memo of the contraband was made; the statement of Bajrang Lal was recorded under Section 161 Cr. P. C. ; the registration certificate of the vehicle was seized and other evidence were collected, which has been filed along with the challan.
(3.) IN the case of Gaunter Edwin Kircher (supra), two packets of Charas weighting 5 gms. and 7 gms. were seized from a German National who was sitting on a wooden log. On suspicion, the Sub- INspector searched the accused and found polythene pouch from his pocket containing tobacco, one cigarette paper packet and two cylindrical pieces of `charas'. IN the fact situation of that case, the Hon'ble Apex Court observed, "to obviate this difficulty, the concerned authorities would do better if they sent the entire quantity seized for chemical analysis so that there may not be any dispute of this nature regarding the quantity seized. " IN the case of Sarija Banu, `ganja' weighing 5 Kg. and cash were recovered from the car. Therefore, the case law cited on behalf of the petitioner relates to cases having totally different situations and they are of no help to the petitioners in the facts and circumstances of the present case. It has been held in the case of Mohan Lal vs. State, 2005 (2) Cr. L. R. (Raj.) 1320, that "it is also well settled that in bail matters the orders passed by different Courts cannot be taken as binding precedents because each matter depends on its own merits and facts and circumstances of that particular case. " In this case, it would not be appropriate for this Court to go into the detailed examination of evidence on record or elaborate discussion of documents so as to deal with the lengthy submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioners, at the stage of bail application of the accused. This Court is conscious of its limitations while considering an application for bail. Suffice it to say that the accused-petitioners are the residents of District Mohali, Punjab, who were carrying a large quantity of contraband from a place near Bandarwada, District Ajmer, Rajasthan. As regards the accused Sukhdeep Singh, the evidence collected by the investigation agency and filed along with the challan goes to show that he was the driver of the vehicle. The registered owner of the vehicle was the co-accused Guru Iqbal Singh. Therefore, in view of the fact that investigation is complete, I deem it proper to enlarge the accused-petitioner Sukhdeep Singh on bail with a condition, as laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sarija Banu (supra ). ;