ba-4345-10.sxw 1 A. Patil IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL BAIL APPLICATION NO. 4345 OF 2010 Rajesh Kumar Rekhi ... Applicant V/s. Union of India and another ... Respondents Mr. Anil Lalla i/by M/s Lalla & Lalla for the applicant Ms. Rebecca Gonsalvez for respondent No.1 Mrs. S. D. Shinde, APP for the State. CORAM:- A.M. THIPSAY, J. DATED :- 14 TH JULY, 2011. P.C. : 1. Heard. 2. The main contention that was advanced in support of the application is that the percentage of Tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) in the Charas allegedly seized from the Applicant is not disclosed in the Chemical Analyser’s Report. An order was passed by this Court (Coram : R.C. Chavan, J.) on 29th April, 2011, requiring the learned APP, for Respondent No.1-Union of India, to find out from the laboratory as to what was the percentage of Charas in the samples seized in this case. Pursuant to the said order, a report from the Central Forensic Science Laboratory has been tendered by Ms. Gonsalves, the learned APP for Respondent No.1, and the same is taken on record. I have gone through the said report, a copy of which has been furnished to the learned Advocate for the applicant. 3. Ms. Gonsalves, the learned Advocate for Respondent No.1, has placed reliance on a decision of the High Court of Delhi arising out of a reference made by a learned Single Judge of the said Court in Bail Application No.2330 of 2008, reported in 2011 Cri.L.J. 334. The reference was made in the following terms : ba-4345-10.sxw 2 A. Patil “whether the percentage of THC in a sample of Charas can by itself be determinative of the purity of the sample and whether such test is relevant or necessary for the purpose of considering the grant of bail or of awarding of sentence in terms of Section 21 read with Section 37 of NDPS?” The Delhi High Court after considering all the relevant aspect of the matter, answered the said question as follows :- “Therefore our answer to the question is that the percentage of THC in a sample of charas by itself cannot be determinative of the purity of the sample. Furthermore, a test resulting in the quantification of the percentage content of THC is neither relevant nor necessary for the purposes of considering the grant of bail or of awarding sentence under the NDPS Act.” 4. Thus the percentage of THC in the charas is not relevant for determining the quantity of the contraband allegedly found with the applicant and the other accused. 5. In view of this observation, Mr. Lalla states that the applicant is in custody since 11.11.2009 and it would be appropriate to direct the trial to be expeditiously held. He submits that if the trial is expedited, he would not press for bail. I am informed that charge has already been framed in the matter. 6. The application is rejected. However, under the circumstances, the Trial Court is directed to expedite the trial and endevour to complete it within a period of six months from the date of receipt of this order. 7. Liberty to apply afresh for bail should the trial be not over by that time. [A.M. THIPSAY, J.]