Allahabad High Court
Ravi Kumar @ Gola vs State Of U.P. on 4 August, 2022
Bench: Subhash Vidyarthi
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 79
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 29675 of 2022
Applicant :- Ravi Kumar @ Gola
Opposite Party :- State of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Jawahir Yadav,Tanisha Jahangir Monir
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Subhash Vidyarthi,J.
1.Heard Ms. Tanisha Jahangir Monir, the learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Shashi Shekhar Tiwari, the learned Additional Government Advocate and perused the record.
2.The instant application has been filed seeking release of the applicant on bail in Case Crime No. 34 of 2022, under Sections 8/20 of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, Police Station Highway, District Mathura during pendency of the trial in the Court below.
3.The aforesaid case has been registered on the basis of a first information report lodged by a Sub-Inspector of Police against seven named accused persons, including the applicant, alleging that on the basis of an information received from a mukhbir, a truck was intercepted and 55 packets containing 5 to 10 Kg of Ganja in each of the packet was recovered from the truck and all the 55 packets weighed in total 512 Kgs. The F.I.R. states that an open packet was weighed and its weighed was found to be 5 Kg and 46 gms and this packet was kept apart as a sample. It has further been stated that the Sub-Inspector made a phone call to the Assistant Police Commissioner regarding the recovery and the Assistant Police Commissioner told him that he was busy in election duty and could not come on the spot and under his oral orders the Sub-Inspector himself carried out the search and seizure.
4.In the affidavit filed in support of the bail application it has been stated that the applicant is innocent and he has no criminal history. The affidavit contains an undertaking that in case the applicant is released on bail he will not misuse the liberty of bail and he will fully cooperate in the investigation.
5. The applicant is languishing in jail since 10-02-2022.
6.The learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that as per the F.I.R. allegations, 55 packets were recovered but sample has been taken out only from one packet and the procedure laid down in Standing Order 1 of 1989 for collection of Psychotropic Substances has not been followed in the present case. It has further been submitted that the there is no independent witness of the alleged recovery and that the provisions of Section 50 of the NDPS Act have not been complied with in the present case.
7.The learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the co-accused Rakesh Pathak and Sushil Yadav have already been granted bail by this Court vide orders dated 21-07-2022 and 25-07-2022 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application Nos. 29546 of 2022 and 29827 of 2022 respectively.
8.The learned counsel for the applicant has placed reliance on a judgment of the High Court of Rajasthan in Netram Vs. State of Rajasthan reported in 2013 Lawsuit (Raj) 1351, wherein it has been held that the Investigating Officer is under an obligation to collect separate samples from each of the packets and sent the same for analysis.
9. The learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that there is no independent witness of the alleged recovery and that the provisions of Section 50 of the NDPS Act have not been complied with in the present case.
10.Per contra, the learned Additional Government Advocate has opposed the prayer for grant of bail.
11. Having considered the rival submissions made on behalf of the respective parties and having regard to the fact that even as per the averments made in the F.I.R., recovery was made by a Sub-Inspector and that the Assistant Police Commissioner has expressed his inability to come to the spot; that out of 55 packets recovered, sample was taken only from one packet and that there are no independent witnesses of the alleged recovery and also the fact that the two other co-accused persons have already been released on bail, I am prima facie of the view that the submissions made on behalf of the applicant give rise to a reasonable ground for believing that the applicant may not not be held guilty of the alleged offence. Further, there is no reason to believe that the applicant is likely to commit any offence, if he is released on bail
12.In light of the preceding discussion and without making any observation on the merit of the case, the instant bail application is allowed.
13.Let the applicant -Ravi Kumar @ Gola be released on bail in Case Crime No. 34 of 2022, under Sections 8/20 of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, Police Station Highway, District Mathura on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court below, subject to the following conditions:-
(i) The applicant will not tamper with the evidence during the trial.
(ii) The applicant will not influence any witness.
(iii) The applicant will appear before the trial court on the date fixed, unless personal presence is exempted.
(iv) The applicant shall not directly or indirectly make inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court to any police officer or tamper with the evidence.
14.In case of breach of any of the above condition, the prosecution shall be at liberty to move an application before this Court seeking cancellation of the bail.
Order Date :- 4.8.2022
pks
