Allahabad High Court
Deepak Rana vs Union Of India (Dri) on 5 January, 2023
Bench: Renu Agarwal
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
?Court No. - 28
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 5014 of 2022
Applicant :- Deepak Rana
Opposite Party :- Union Of India (Dri)
Counsel for Applicant :- Parmanand Gupta
Counsel for Opposite Party :- Digvijay Nath Dubey
Hon'ble Mrs. Renu Agarwal,J.
Heard learned counsel for the applicant, Shri Digvijay Nath Dubey, learned counsel for Union of India and perused the record.
By means of this application the applicant has prayed to be enlarged on bail in Case Crime No.01 of 2018 under Sections 8/20, 23, 25, 27, 28, 29 of the N.D.P.S Act, Police Station DRI Mahanagar District Lucknow.
Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the instant case due to ulterior motive. The applicant is a low employee of owner of the truck. The applicant was not aware of the fact that ganja was being carried in the aforesaid truck. There is no independent witness to the recovery. Mandatory provisions of Section 50 of the NDPS Act have been violated. The weight of the recovered substance is unreliable as scientific instruments were not used in its weighment. Trial is moving at a snail's pace and is not likely to conclude in near future. The applicant is the sole bread winner of his family. His prolong incarceration has brought his family at the verge of starvation. The applicant does not have any criminal history apart from this case. The applicant is languishing in jail since 11.01.2018 hence the applicant is entitled to be enlarged on bail.
Learned A.G.A on the other hand has vehemently opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that no cause for falsely implicating the applicant has been disclosed by the applicant, 240kg of ganja is said to have been recovered from the vehicle in question, the recovered substance is much higher than its commercial value which is 20kg, the applicant being an employee of the owner of vehicle must be aware of the nature of goods being carried by the vehicle, the burden of proof is on the applicant to show that he is not aware of the fact that such a huge amount of ganja is being carried in the vehicle in question. Reliance is placed on the judgment of Supreme Court in the case of Union of India through Narcotics Control Bureau, Lucknow Vs. Md. Nawaz Khan reported at AIR 2021 Supreme Court 4476 to submit that once possession is established, the person who claims that it was not a conscious possession has to establish it. The relevant part of the judgment is reproduced below:
"Once possession is established, the person who claims that it was not a conscious possession has to establish it, because how he came to be in possession is within his special knowledge; Section 35 of the Act gives a statutory recognition of this position because of the presumption available in law."
Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the fact that the 240 kg ganja is said to have been recovered from the vehicle in question, and the applicant has failed to prove that he was not aware of the fact that contraband was being carried in the truck, the quantity of recovered ganja is much higher than its commercial quantity which is 20kg, the applicant has also failed to satisfy the Court that he is not likely to commit any offence while on bail in view of Section 37.(b) (ii) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substance Act, 1985, the relevant provision is reproduced below:
"(ii) where the Public Prosecutor opposes the application, the court is satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for believing that he is not guilty of such offence and that he is not likely to commit any offence while on bail"
In view of the aforesaid discussions, this Court is not inclined to enlarge the applicant on bail.
Hence the bail application filed on behalf of the applicant is rejected.
(Renu Agarwal,J.)
Order Date :- 5.1.2023
Nadeem
