Legal Topics

Allahabad High Court rejects bail to a man held with 1025 kg ganja

The Allahabad High Court has rejected the bail utility of a man accused of possessing 1025 kg of ganja.

A single-judge Bench of Justice Shekhar Kumar Yadav handed this order whilst listening to a Criminal Misc Bail Application filed utilizing Shankar Varik @ Vikram.

The bail utility below Section 439 of Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed via the applicant looking for expansion on bail in Case below Section 8/20/29 of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act at Police Station Challani-NCB Lucknow, District Jhansi.

The factual matrix of the case is that on May 27, 2020, at about 7 AM, upon data that 4 persons, namely, Sanjay Kumar Singh, Vinod Singh, Shankar Varik (applicant/accused) and Chhote Lal in two vehicles are about to come from Tikamgarh in the direction of Mauranipur at Khadiyan Crossing and they are carrying big volume of unlawful ganja, the informant of NCB with his group alongside with essential gadgets (proper kits) for in addition motion following provisions of NDPS Act, reached the spot at about 9 AM and began patrolling at Khandiyan Crossing.

It is alleged that in the night at about 18.30 hrs, the officers of NCB noticed both trucks, which have been coming toward Khandiyan Crossing of Tikamgarh. The officers of NCB intercepted the Dumper and from the Cavity of Dumper, a massive quantity of ganja weighing 1025 kg was once recovered, which was once saved in 25 plastic gunny luggage and upon checking out with the aid of DD Kit, the samples examined advantageous for ganja. The stated dumper used to be pushed with the aid of co-accused Vinod Singh and the applicant used to be sitting on the truck. The aforesaid search used to be performed in presence of two impartial witnesses, namely, Chandra Shekhar and Kuldeep and also in presence of a gazetted officer, namely, Dr Pradeep Kumar Singh, C.O Mauranipur, Jhansi.

The Dumper used to be additionally seized below Section 60 of the NDPS Act. A note below part sixty-seven of the NDPS Act was once served upon the accused humans and their statements had been additionally recorded.

Sahai, Senior Counsel acting for the applicant, submitted that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the case. During the lockdown, the applicant went to Jhansi for his private work and he did now not get any car to return returned to his village at Chhattisgarh. The applicant was once neither proprietor of the dumper nor driver of the dumper. The applicant used to be in simple terms a passenger in the car in question.

He has similarly submitted that the applicant has no expertise in recovered contraband. The alleged dumper, from which the contraband has been recovered, does now not belong to the applicant.

Senior Counsel additionally submitted that neither any recuperation has been made nor any recuperation memo has been organized on the spot. At the time of arrest, obligatory provisions of Sections 42, 50, 52, 53, 57 of the NDPS Act have no longer been complied with.

Senior Counsel stated that nothing has been recovered from the possession of the applicant and the alleged healing is false and fabricated. There is no unbiased eye witness of the alleged recovery, which has been shown.

Senior Counsel similarly stated that there is no proof on a document that suggests that the applicant used to be in aware possession or optimistic possession of the recovered contraband. The applicant has no crook history. The applicant has been in penitentiary because May 29, 2020.

Additional Government Advocate for the State as properly as Ashish Pandey, assistance for NCB, have hostile the prayer for bail and have submitted that the applicant was once arrested on the spot. The applicant and different co-accused men and women had been very plenty concerned in interstate trafficking as they have admitted in their voluntary announcement below Section 67 of NDPS Act, which belies all statements.

He has similarly submitted that so a long way as compliance of Section 50 of NDPS Act is concerned, the accused humans have been searched in the presence of Pradeep Kumar Singh, C.O Mauranipur, Jhansi, who is a gazetted officer, hence, Section 50 of NDPS Act has entirely complied with. Recovery has additionally been made in presence of two impartial witnesses, namely, Chandra Shekhar and Kuldeep.

He has, in addition, submitted that it is an admitted truth that the restoration of 1025 kg ganja, which is extra than the business quantity, has been recovered from the dumper in question, hence, Section 37 of NDPS Act is attracted in the case, therefore, the bail software is dependable to be rejected.

The Court held that,

It is evident that on May 27, 2020, at some stage in the checking, the automobile cited above, ganja weighing 1025 kilograms used to be recovered from the vehicle, which admittedly is extra than the industrial quantity, as such, rigours of Section 37 of the NDPS Act are relevant in the case.

The suggestions acting for the applicant submitted that no public witness used to be taken through the police in the alleged recuperation lawsuits no matter the alleged restoration used to be made on the Highway, therefore, this recuperation can’t be presumed to be an independent recovery.

According to the healing memo, it is evident that the healing used to be made at night time and due to the pandemic every day at that time and seclusion no public witness may want to be secured. Apart from this, the regulation is nicely settled that the proof of a public officer can’t be thrown solely on the floor that he is a police officer.

The accusation in the case is concerning the business quantity. Once the bail is adversarial to a man or woman accused of the enumerated offences, in case, the Court proposes to supply bail to such a person, two prerequisites are to be mandatorily blissful in addition to the everyday necessities below the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 or any different enactment, (i) the Court need to be at ease that there are looking grounds for believing that the individual is no longer responsible for such offence.

“In the mild of the data and instances of the case, it would be inappropriate to talk about the proof in depth at this stage due to the fact it is possible to affect the trial of the accused. But, from the perusal of the proof amassed for the duration of investigation so far, prima facie, the involvement of the accused in the case cannot be dominated out. No motive is determined to falsely implicate the applicant/accused. Therefore, there is no correct floor to launch the applicant accused on bail at this stage. All the contentions raised by using the senior assistance for the accused pertain to the deserves of the case and the identical can’t be viewed whilst thinking about software for providing bail. The courtroom is unable to shape an opinion at this stage that the accused has no longer dedicated an offence,”

-the Court observed.

“In the last conclusion, thinking about the data and instances of the case, the gravity of the offence, the severity of punishment, in my opinion, no case for bail is made out,” the Court stated whilst rejecting the bail application.

“It is clarified that the observations made involving the bail utility are confined to the choice of the bail utility and any observations made herein shall now not affect the trial of the case. However, it is predicted that the trial courtroom shall make all honest endeavours to expedite the complaints of the trial and conclude the equal as expeditiously as possible, following the law, inside a length of six months,”

-the order reads.

Leave a Reply