Allahabad High Court
Ashok Pal vs Union Of India Thru. Intelligence ... on 9 May, 2022
Bench: Krishan Pahal
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
?Court No. - 28
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 1272 of 2022
Applicant :- Ashok Pal
Opposite Party :- Union Of India Thru. Intelligence Officer Directorate Of Revenre Intelligence Lko.
Counsel for Applicant :- Ganesh Kumar Gupta
Counsel for Opposite Party :- Akhilesh Kumar Awasthi
Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J.
Heard Sri Ganesh Kumar Gupta, learned counsel for the applicant, learned AGA for the State and perused the material available on record.
Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No. 14 of 2019, U/S 8/20 of the Narcotics Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, Police Station Directorate of Revenue Intelligence, Lucknow Zonal Unit, District Lucknow, during the pendency of trial.
As per the prosecution case, on the information of squealer, the team was constituted by the DRI and Truck No. MP 17 HH 1949 was intercepted by the team on 15.11.2019 at about 7:00 p.m. The three accused persons, namely Uma Shankar Pal, Harilal Pal and the applicant Ashok Pal were arrested at the spot and the said contraband to the tune of 1967.67 kg was recovered from the back side of the truck under the cover.
Learned counsel for the applicant has stated that he has falsely been implicated in the present case. He was simply a passenger. The applicant is stated to have been implicated on the basis of his confession recorded under Section 67 of the NDPS Act. The vagaries of Section 67 NDPS Act do not apply to the applicant as it has already been settled by Apex Court in the case of Tofan Singh Vs. State of Tamil Nadu (2021) 4 SCC 1. Learned counsel for the applicant has further stated that the applicant has nothing to do with the said contraband. He is neither the driver nor the conductor in the said truck. Learned counsel for the applicant has further referred to the statements of the other co-accused persons who also have not assigned any particular role to the applicant. The applicant and co-accused persons are residents of a village in district Mirzapur. There are no criminal antecedents of the applicant.
Per contra, learned DRI has vehemently opposed the bail application of the applicant on the ground that the applicant and co-accused persons were in conscious possession of the said contraband as they were conscious about the said ganja being carried in the truck covered by a Tripaul. Learned counsel has further stated that all the three accused persons are the residents of one and the same village in district Mirzapur so the applicant cannot deny his complicity. Learned counsel for the DRI has further stated that the twin conditions provided in Section 37 of NDPS Act have to be fulfilled regarding adjudication of bail.
Learned counsel for D.R.I. has placed reliance on the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of State vs. Syed Amir Hasnain, (2002) 10 SCC 88, wherein the Court has held, "In view of the two judgments of this Court in Union of India vs. Ram Samujh (1999) 9 SCC 382 and Union of India vs. Aharwa Deen, (2000) 9 SCC 382, even the High Court would be bound by the provisions of Section 37 of the NDPS Act and would not be entitled to release the accused under the provisions of the NDPS Act unless the provisions of Section 37 are satisfied."
Learned counsel for D.R.I. has placed reliance on the judgement of the Apex Court in the case of Megh Singh vs. State of Punjab, (2003) 8 SCC 666 wherein the Court held that a bare reading of Section 50 shows that it only applies in case of personal search of a person. It does not extend to search of a vehicle or a container or a bag, or premises.
The submission of the learned counsel for the applicant is that the provision of Section 57 of the Act, 1985 was not complied with. In Babubhai Odhavji Patel Vs. State of Gujrat, (2005) 8 SCC 725, the Supreme Court has held that Section 57 of the Act, 1985 is not mandatory but it is only directory.
The accusation in the present case is with regard to the commercial quantity. Once the public prosecutor opposes the application for bail to a person accused of the enumerated offences, in case, the Court proposes to grant bail to such a person, two conditions are to be mandatorily satisfied in addition to the normal requirements under the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 or any other enactment, (i) the Court must be satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for believing that the person is not guilty of such offence. In State of Kerala Vs. Rajesh and others AIR 2020 SC 721, the Supreme Court has held that the expression "reasonable grounds" means something more than prima facie grounds, and (ii) that person is not likely to commit any offence while on bail. The non-obstante clause with which this Section starts should be given its due meaning and clearly it is intended to restrict the powers to grant bail.
In State of M.P. vs. Kajad (2001) 7 SCC 673, the Supreme Court has held that denial of bail is the rule and it grants an exception under (ii) of clause (b) of Section 37(1) of the Act, 1985.
In State of Kerala vs. Rajesh and others (supra), the Supreme Court has held that a liberal approach in the matter of bail under the N.D.P.S. Act is uncalled for.
In the light of the facts and circumstances of the present case, it cannot be said that mandatory conditions, as mentioned above, have been satisfied. It would be inappropriate to discuss the evidence in depth at this stage because it is likely to influence the trial court. But, from the perusal of the evidence, collected during investigation, it prima facie appears that the applicant was involved in this offence. No reason is found to falsely implicate the applicant accused person. Therefore, there is no good ground to release the applicant-accused person on bail at this stage. The bail application is liable to be rejected. The bail application is reject accordingly.
It is clarified that the observations made regarding the bail application are limited to the decision, in the light of the facts, provided by the parties at this stage, as to whether the bail application should be allowed or not and the said observations shall not effect the trial of the case.
The applicant is in custody since 15.11.2019, therefore, the trial court is hereby directed to expedite trial and dispose of the case, at the earliest, if possible within a period of one year.
Order Date :- 9.5.2022
Arif
