9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (7) TMI 1538X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... oy disclosed his name to be Barun Kumar Bantawa (co-accused). On searching his bag, 23 brick type pieces in transparent polythene were found. It is alleged that 11 Kg 592 gram of Charas was recovered. 3. The co-accused disclosed that he along with his friend, that is, the applicant, used to bring Charas from Nepal to supply the same in Delhi. On the basis of the disclosure of the co-accused, the applicant was apprehended on 16.02.2021. A notice under Section 50 of the NDPS Act was served upon the applicant. It is alleged that the applicant disclosed that he had Charas in his bag. On searching the bag of the applicant, 10 bricks total weighing 4.396 kg of Charas were found. It is alleged that the applicant disclosed that he along with the co-accused had brought 16 kg of Charas on 15.02.2021 from Nepal. 4. Upon completion of the investigation, the chargesheet in the present case was filed for offences against the applicant and the coaccused, for offence under Section 20 of the NDPS Act. 5. The alleged recovery is of commercial quantity of contraband. 6. The learned Trial Court dismissed the regular bail application moved by the applicant vide order dated 12.01.2022, hence the pre ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s in the cases of Tamir Ali v. Narcotics Control Bureau : 2023:DHC:3545, Amina v. State NCT of Delhi :2023:DHC:4024, Sarvothaman Guhan v. Narcotics Control Bureau: 2023:DHC:6614, Krishan @ Babu v. The State Govt of NCT of Delhi : Bail Appln. 2804/2023, Gurpreet Singh v. State of NCT of Delhi : 2024:DHC:796 and Hikmatullah Hikmati v. Narcotics Control Bureau : 2024:DHC:1263, wherein Coordinate Benches of this Court have granted bail to the accused person therein after considering the factum of delay in filing of application under Section 52A of the NDPS Act. He argued that it has been held in the said cases that the benefit of such violation will accrue to the accused person at the time of consideration of bail. 14. He submitted that the applicant has satisfied the bar under Section 37(1)(b)(ii) of NDPS Act of establishing reasonable grounds for believing that he is not guilty of such offence. 15. He submitted that the applicant has been in custody for more than 3 years and that there is no possibility of the applicant influencing the witnesses. He submitted that applicant has clean antecedents and deep roots in the society. 16. He submitted that the matter is still at the stage ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... whether there is a prima facie case or reasonable ground to believe that the accused has committed the offence; circumstances which are peculiar to the accused; likelihood of the offence being repeated; the nature and gravity of the accusation; severity of the punishment in the event of conviction; the danger of the accused absconding or fleeing if released on bail; reasonable apprehension of the witnesses being threatened; etc. Rigours of Section 37 of the NDPS Act 24. It is unequivocally established that, to be granted bail, the accused charged with offence under the NDPS Act must fulfill the conditions stipulated in Section 37 of the NDPS Act. Section 37 of the NDPS Act reads as under: "37. Offences to be cognizable and non-bailable.-(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974)- (a) every offence punishable under this Act shall be cognizable; (b) no person accused of an offence punishable for offences under Section 19 or Section 24 or Section 27-A and also for offences involving commercial quantity shall be released on bail or on his own bond unless- (i) the Public Prosecutor has been given an opportunity to oppose the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he Official Gazette, specify such narcotic drugs, psychotropic substances, controlled substances or conveyance or class of narcotic drugs, class of psychotropic substances, class of controlled substances or conveyances, which shall, as soon as may be after their seizure, be disposed of by such officer and in such manner as that Government may, from time to time, determine after following the procedure hereinafter specified. (2) Where any narcotic drugs, psychotropic substances, controlled substances or conveyances has been seized and forwarded to the officer-in-charge of the nearest police station or to the officer empowered under section 53, the officer referred to in sub-section (1) shall prepare an inventory of such narcotic drugs, psychotropic substances, controlled substances or conveyances containing such details relating to their description, quality, quantity, mode of packing, marks, numbers or such other identifying particulars of the narcotic drugs, psychotropic substances, controlled substances or conveyances or the packing in which they are packed, country of origin and other particulars as the officer referred to in sub-section (1) may consider relevant to the ident ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Union of India v. Mohanlal (supra), where it was held that it is mandatory that sampling needs to be done before the learned Magistrate without loss of time. Directions were also issued to the Central Government and State Governments to designate an officer for respective storage facility and to provide for other steps, including measures such as stipulated in Standing Order No. 1/89 dated 13.06.1989 (hereafter 'Standing Order No. 1/89') to ensure proper security against theft or replacement of the seized drugs. The relevant portion of the said judgement is reproduced hereunder: "15. It is manifest from Section 52-A(2)(c) (supra) that upon seizure of the contraband the same has to be forwarded either to the officer-in-charge of the nearest police station or to the officer empowered under Section 53 who shall prepare an inventory as stipulated in the said provision and make an application to the Magistrate for purposes of (a) certifying the correctness of the inventory, (b) certifying photographs of such drugs or substances taken before the Magistrate as true, and (c) to draw representative samples in the p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rate for drawing of samples and certification, etc. without any loss of time. The officer conducting the seizure is also obliged to report the act of seizure and the making of the application to the superior officer in writing so that there is a certain amount of accountability in the entire exercise, which as at present gets neglected for a variety of reasons. There is in our opinion no manner of doubt that the seizure of the contraband must be followed by an application for drawing of samples and certification as contemplated under the Act. There is equally no doubt that the process of making any such application and resultant sampling and certification cannot be left to the whims of the officers concerned. The scheme of the Act in general and Section 52-A in particular, does not brook any delay in the matter of making of an application or the drawing of samples and certification. While we see no room for prescribing or reading a time-frame into the provision, we are of the view that an application for sampling and certification ought to be made without undue delay and the Magistrate on receipt of any such application will be expected to attend to the application and do the needf ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ventory, photograph or list of samples would not constitute primary evidence. 6. The obvious reason behind this provision is to inject fair play in the process of investigation. Section 52A of the NDPS Act is a mandatory rule of evidence which requires the physical presence of a Magistrate followed by an order facilitating his approval either for certifying an inventory or for a photograph taken apart from list of samples drawn... xxx 8. Before any proposed disposal/destruction mandate of Section 52A of the NPDS Act requires to be duly complied with starting with an application to that effect. A Court should be satisfied with such compliance while deciding the case. The onus is entirely on the prosecution in a given case to satisfy the Court when such an issue arises for consideration. Production of seized material is a factor to establish seizure followed by recovery." (emphasis supplied) 33. From the marginal note of Section 52A of the NDPS Act, it is evident that the said provision exclusively deals with disposal of the seized narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances. 34. Section 52A of the NDPS Act deals with how the contraband is to be disposed of as per the pr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to why the prosecution did not seek to destroy the same or legitimize the inventory by preferring an application under Section 52A of the NDPS Act. The said doubt can be duly overcome by the prosecution by justifying the delay in moving an application. 41. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Jitendra v. State of M.P. : (2004) 10 SCC 562 observed as under: "6. ... In the trial it was necessary for the prosecution to establish by cogent evidence that the alleged quantities of charas and ganja were seized from the possession of the accused. The best evidence would have been the seized materials which ought to have been produced during the trial and marked as material objects. There is no explanation for this failure to produce them. Mere oral evidence as to their features and production of panchnama does not discharge the heavy burden which lies on the prosecution, particularly where the offence is punishable with a stringent sentence as under the NDPS Act." (emphasis supplied) 42. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Union of India v. Jarooparam : (2018) 4 SCC 334 observed as under: "9. From the above proceedings, it is crystal clear that the remaining seized stuff was n ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ty of contraband. But, the High Court committed no error in dealing with this aspect of the case and disbelieving the prosecution story by arriving at the conclusion that at the trial, the bulk quantities of contraband were not exhibited to the witnesses at the time of adducing evidence." (emphasis supplied) 43. It is thus clear that the onus is on the prosecution to exhibit the bulk of the contraband when the same has not been disposed. 44. In other words, if the seized goods are in existence and it can be proved by leading reliable evidence, that is, the actual goods that have been seized can be produced, a certificate of magistrate then acquires the nature of secondary evidence and cannot be treated as primary evidence under law. From a holistic reading of section 52A of the NDPS Act, it is evident that it is neither the intention of the legislature nor a requirement under the section to treat the said certificate only as primary evidence. 45. Thus, the proof of contraband, which is before the court, is not dependent upon the application for its disposal. Even otherwise in the aforesaid judgment of State of Punjab v. Makhan Chand : (2004) 3 SCC 453, the Hon'ble Supreme Co ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ar to be cases where the muddamal or contraband was disposed of. No arguments to the contrary are noted in the judgments. The said judgments, in the opinion of this Court, will not apply in a case where contraband is not destroyed. From a bare reading of these judgments, it is clear that the Hon'ble Supreme Court was dealing with a situation wherein the muddamal or contraband was destroyed and the original seizure of contraband was not available with the court for being proved as per the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. 52. While no certificate of destruction is present on record to evidence that the contraband is disposed of, in the present case, the contraband has not been exhibited in the Trial Court. On being asked, it was stated that even though the application was filed before the Magistrate but the contraband seized in the present case is still available in the malkhana. In the facts of the present case, reliance by the applicant on Section 52A of the NDPS Act does not advance his case as the contraband is yet to be disposed of. 53. As held by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Mohammed Khalid and another v. The State of Telangana (supra), when the contraband is not available as an exhib ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 1) does not empower the Central Government to lay down the procedure for search of an accused, but only deals with the disposal of seized narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances." Belated filing of application under Section 52A of the NDPS Act 55. It is relevant to note that the case at hand does not relate to the non-filing of the application under Section 52A of the NDPS Act. In the present case, it is argued that the application has been filed belatedly. 56. The applicant has relied on the judgment in the case of Kashif v. Narcotics Control Bureau: 2023 SCC OnLine Del 2881. The relevant portion of the judgment is reproduced hereunder: "24. Hence, I am of the view that non-compliance of section 52A within a reasonable time gives rise to the apprehension that sample could have been tampered with and in case of a wrongly drawn sample, the benefit of doubt has to accrue to the accused. The prosecuting agency has to prove at the time of trial that the sample was immune from tampering. 25. In the present case, the sample was kept in the custody of the prosecuting agency for more than one and a half month, thus, raising doubt with regards to tampering of the same. 26. A ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... icant or at his instance. Therefore, the embargo of Section 37 NDPS is not applicable on the Applicant." (emphasis supplied) 57. It is pertinent to note that the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Union of India v. Mohanlal (supra) had specifically noted that while the process of sampling cannot be left to the whims of the prosecution and the application for sampling and certification ought to be made without undue delay, there was no room for prescribing or reading a time-frame into the provision. Though no timeframe has been incorporated in the provision, the application should be made without undue delay. The cause of delay, however, in the opinion of this Court, can be explained by the prosecution during the course of trial and is not fatal. 58. As long as the prosecution is able to justify the delay on its end, mere delay would not vitiate the evidence. To hold otherwise would lead to an odd situation where even a few hours post the threshold of 72 hours would nullify the evidence. The Court has to be cognizant of the ground realities where situations may arise where the sample was not sent to FSL on time or the application under Section 52A of the NDPS Act could not be p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 024, the Hon'ble Apex Court has dismissed the said special leave petition. 64. In the present case, evidently, the application under Section 52A of the NDPS Act was preferred almost two months after the seizure of the contraband from the applicant. It is open to the applicant to press the aforesaid defence at the time of the trial. However, at this stage, the applicant has failed to establish a prima facie case as to how he has been prejudiced on account of the delayed compliance. In the opinion of this Court, any observation as to the veracity of the recovery on account of delay to grant bail to the applicant would be premature. Improper Sampling: Non-Compliance Of Standing Order No. 1/88 65. The applicant has also challenged the procedure of sampling in the present case. It is contended by the applicant that the law on drawing of samples as expounded in Standing Order No. 1/88 has been contravened by the prosecution. The relevant portion of Standing Order No. 1/88 is stipulated hereunder: "1.4 If the drugs seized are found in packages/containers the same should be serially numbered for purposes of identification. In case the drugs are found in loose form t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ontainers remain, no bunching would be necessary and no samples need be drawn. (d) If it is 5 or more in case of other drugs and substances and 20 or more in case of Ganja and Hashish, one more sample in duplicate may be drawn for such remainder package/ containers. (e) While drawing one sample in duplicate from a particular lot, it must be ensured that representative drug in equal quantity is taken from each package/ container of that lot and mixed together to make a composite whole from which the samples are drawn from that lot. 1.8 Numbering of packages/containers Subject to the detailed procedure of identification of packages/containers, as indicated in para 1.4 each package/container should be securely sealed and in identification slip pasted/attached on each one of them at such place and in such manner as will avoid easy obliteration of the marks and numbers on the slip. Where more than one sample is drawn, each sample should also be serially numbered and marked as S-I, S-2, S-3 and so on, both original and duplicate sample. It should carry the serial number of the packages and marked as P-1,2,3,4 and so on" (emphasis supplied) 66. The applicant is alleging n ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in each case is required for chemical test. The same quantities shall be taken for the duplicate sample also. The seized drugs in the packages/containers shall be well mixed to make it homogeneous and representative before the sample (in duplicate) is draw. 2.4. In the case of Seizure of a single package/container, one sample (in duplicate) shall be drawn. Normally, it is advisable to draw one sample (in duplicate) from each package/container in case of seizure of more than one package/container. 2.5. However, when the packages/containers seized together are of identical size and weight, bearing identical markings and the content of each package given identical results on color test by the drug identification kit, conclusively indicating that the packages are identical in all respects, the packages/containers may be carefully bunched in lots of 10 packages/containers/except in the case of ganja and hashish (charas), where it may be bunched in lots of 40 such packages/containers. For each such lot of packages/containers, one sample (in duplicate) may be drawn. 2.6. Whereafter making such lots, in the case of hashish and ganja, less than 20 packages/containers remain, and in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d down by the Standing Instruction No. 1/88, the relevant portion whereof reads as under: "e) While drawing one sample in duplicate from a particular lot, it must be ensured that representative drug in equal quantity is taken from each package/ container of that lot and mixed together to make a composite whole from which the samples are drawn for that lot." xxx 39. There is another aspect of the matter which cannot also be lost sight of. Standing Instruction No. 1/88, which had been issued under the Act, lays down the procedure for taking samples. The High Court has noticed that PW-7 had taken samples of 25 grams each from all the five bags and then mixed them and sent to the laboratory. There is nothing to show that adequate quantity from each bag had been taken. It was a requirement in law." (emphasis supplied) 71. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Noor Aga v. State of Punjab : (2008) 16 SCC 417, observed as under: "91. The logical corollary of these discussions is that the guidelines such as those present in the Standing Order cannot be blatantly flouted and substantial compliance therewith must be insisted upon for so that sanctity of physical evi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e the contraband articles were taken into custody. xxx 14. In State of H.P. v. Pirthi Chand [(1996) 2 SCC 37 : 1996 SCC (Cri) 210] it was held that it would thus be settled law that every deviation from the details of the procedure prescribed for search does not necessarily lead to the conclusion that search by the police renders the recovery of the articles pursuant to the illegal search irrelevant evidence nor the discovery of the fact inadmissible at the trial. Weight to be attached to such evidence depends on facts and circumstances in each case. The court is required to scan the evidence with care and to act upon it when it is proved and the court would hold that the evidence would be relied upon. 15. In Radha Kishan v. State of U.P. [AIR 1963 SC 822 : (1963) 1 Cri LJ 809] this Court held that the evidence obtained by illegal search and seizure would not be rejected but requires to be examined carefully. In State of Maharashtra v. Natwarlal Damodardas Soni [(1980) 4 SCC 669 : 1981 SCC (Cri) 98] it was held that even if the search was illegal, it will not affect the validity of the seizure and further investigation of the authorities or the validity of the trial which f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e deviation from the procedure. The same alone will not render the seizure inadmissible. Whether there was any possibility of the evidence being tampered with or any serious prejudice is caused to the applicant is to be seen during the course of the trial. Effect of non-compliance at the stage of bail 77. The applicant has placed reliance on the judgment in the case of Santini Simone v. Department of Customs : 2020 SCC OnLine Del 2128, where a Coordinate Bench of this Court had acquitted the accused person therein after considering the dictum in a catena of cases that have also been referred by the applicant herein in support of his contentions. The relevant portion of the aforesaid judgment is reproduced hereunder: "57. In Sumit Tomar v. State of Punjab, (2013) 1 SCC 395, the Court was examining the case where according to the prosecution, two plastic bags containing 'bhooki' opium powder were recovered from the dickey of the car. The contents of both the bags were mixed and two samples of 250 grams each were taken out. The remaining contraband weighing 69.5 kgs were sealed in two bags and the samples were sent to Forensic Science Laboratory for examination. It was contended ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the same and thereafter, drawn two samples which were sent to FSL for analysis. The Court found fault with the said procedure and allowed the appeal. The Court held as under: "25. After hearing both the learned counsel for parties and going through the Trial Court Record, I find force in the submission of learned counsel for appellant. Admittedly, the samples were drawn after breaking small pieces from 08of the polythene bags which were allegedly kept in a green coloured bag by the appellant in his right hand. The IO prepared two samples of 25 grams each after taking a small quantity from each of the slabs. 26. Though the settled law is that if it is not practicable to send the entire quantity then sufficient quantity by way of samples from each of the packets of pieces recovered should be sent for chemical examination. Otherwise, result thereon, may be doubted. 27. For example, if the 08 packets were allegedly recovered from the appellant and only two packets were having contraband substance and rest 6 packets did not have any contraband; though all maybe of the same colour, when we mix the substances of all 8 packets into one or two; then definitely, the result would be ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... bove, this Court is unable to accept that the prosecution has established that the contents of each of the four packets that were allegedly recovered, were tested and found to be charas prior to the contents of the said packets being placed together. 75. Although PW-4 had stated in his cross-examination that the representative samples were drawn from the recovered substance after homogeneously mixing the same, it is obvious that no such homogeneous mixture was made. The substance in each of the four packets was allegedly a "hardened substance". It also appears that the same was in the form of a spherical balls. There is no evidence to indicate that the said hardened substance from each of the four packets was crushed and then mixed together. 76... Considering that the substance was a hardened substance, there could be no question of mixing them to obtain a homogeneous mixture; placing four balls (or for that matter a number of spheres) together does not amount to creating a homogeneous mixture." (emphasis supplied) 78. It is pointed out that a Coordinate Bench of this Court have extended the benefit of non-compliance of the Standing Orders to the accused therein and gran ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Apex Court in the case of State of Punjab v. Balbir Singh : 1994 3 SCC 299 where it was held that while officers cannot totally ignore the provisions under NDPS Act, mere non-compliance will not vitiate the prosecution. It was held that prejudice caused by the noncompliance would have to be shown by the accused and alternatively, the prosecution would need to give a proper explanation for noncompliance, without which the non-compliance will adversely effect the prosecution's case. 85. The State has also relied on Arvind Yadav in JC through his Parokar v. Government of NCT of Delhi: Bail Appln. 1416/2021 where it was held that non-compliance of Section 52A of the NDPS Act would not vitiate the trial. 86. The Court at this stage is seized with the limited question of whether the alleged non-compliance would entitle the applicant to bail. As pointed by the prosecution, most of the judgments relied upon by the applicant are ones that are passed in criminal appeals or rely upon the dictum in criminal appeals. 87. In all these cases, it has been essentially held that in a situation of improper sampling, the onus is on the prosecution to establish that the seized substance is the contr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the course of the trial. 94. This Court is thus not inclined to grant bail to the applicant on the ground of improper sampling. Non-Joinder of Independent Witnesses and No Photography/ Videography 95. The learned counsel for the applicant has also raised the issue that no independent witness was joined by the prosecution even though the co-accused was apprehended on the basis of secret information, and the applicant was apprehended later on the basis of his disclosure. It is argued that no independent witnesses were associated by the prosecution and no photography or videography was done by the prosecution in the present case despite the applicant being apprehended in a public place. 96. In the present case, secret information was received at about 8:55PM on 15.02.2021. It is the case of the prosecution that the raiding team reached near the Ramlila Maidan at about 9:40 PM and asked 5-7 people along the route to join the investigation, however, all of them left stating their compulsions. It is stated that another attempt was made after reaching the spot to include passers-by in the investigation, however, they left as well. It is stated in the FIR that no notice could be serv ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rch conducted in the presence of the independent witnesses would be tested during the course of trial and the same may not be fatal to the case of the prosecution, however, the benefit, at this stage, cannot be denied to the accused. Delay In Trial 104. In the present case, the matter is at the stage of examination of prosecution evidence. It is stated that only two out of the twenty prosecution witnesses have been examined till now. The applicant has been in custody since 18.02.2021. 105. It is trite law that grant of bail on account of delay in trial cannot be said to be fettered by the embargo under Section 37 of the NDPS Act. The Hon'ble Apex Court, in the case of Mohd. Muslim v. State (NCT of Delhi) (supra) has observed as under: "21....Grant of bail on ground of undue delay in trial, cannot be said to be fettered by Section 37 of the Act, given the imperative of Section 436A which is applicable to offences under the NDPS Act too (ref. Satender Kumar Antil supra). Having regard to these factors the court is of the opinion that in the facts of this case, the appellant deserves to be enlarged on bail. 22. Before parting, it would be important to reflect that laws which ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that the petitioner is not guilty, the same may not be formed at this stage when he has already spent more than three and a half years in custody. The prolonged incarceration, generally militates against the most precious fundamental right guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution and in such a situation, the conditional liberty must override the statutory embargo created under Section 37(1)(b)(ii) of the NDPS Act." 107. The Hon'ble Apex Court in Badsha SK. v. The State of West Bengal (order dated 13.09.2023 passed in Special Leave Petition (Crl.) 9715/2023), granted bail to the petitioner wherein who had been in custody for more than two years with the trial yet to begin. 108. Similarly, in Man Mandal & Anr. v. The State of West Bengal (order dated 14.09.2023 passed in Special Leave Petition (Crl.) 8656/2023 decided on 14.09.2023), the petitioner therein had been in custody for almost two years and the Court found that the trial is not likely to be completed in the immediate near future. The petitioner was, therefore, released on bail. 109. In Dheeraj Kumar Shukla v. State of U.P. 2023 : SCC OnLine SC 918, the Hon'ble Apex Court released the petitioner therein on bail, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cially when the trial is likely to take considerable time. CONCLUSION 114. In view of the aforesaid discussion, this Court is of the opinion that the applicant has made out a prima facie case for grant of bail on the ground of absence of independent witnesses, no photography or videography of the recovery and prolonged delay in the trial. 115. In the present case, the prosecution has been given an adequate opportunity to oppose the present application. In view of the facts of the case, prima facie, this Court is of the opinion, that at this stage, there are reasonable grounds to believe that the applicant is not guilty of the alleged offence. Moreover, it is also not disputed that the applicant has clean antecedents, and is thus not likely to commit any offence whilst on bail. 116. However, keeping in mind the fact that the applicant is a foreigner, appropriate conditions have to be imposed while granting bail. 117. The applicant is, therefore, directed to be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond for a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- with two sureties of the like amount, subject to the satisfaction of the learned Trial Court, on the following conditions: a. The applicant shal ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
