Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2005 DIGILAW 1983 (ALL)

SANJAY v. STATE OF U. P.

2005-10-05

RAVINDRA SINGH

body2005
RAVINDRA SINGH, J. ( 1 ) HEARD Sri N. I. Jafri, learned Counsel for the applicant and the learned A. G. A. ( 2 ) THIS application is filed by the applicant Sanjay with the prayer that he may be released on bail in Case Crime no. 186 of 2004 (Case No. 6 of 2005)under sections 18/20 of the N. D. P. S. Act, p. S. Railway Road, District Meerut. ( 3 ) FROM the perusal of the record it reveals that in the present case the f. I. R. was lodged by Sri Ashok Kumar sisodiya, Station Officer, Railway Road meerut on 23. 10. 2004 at 7. 50 p. m. in respect of the incident which had occurred on 23. 10. 2004 at 6. 10 p. m. ( 4 ) ACCORDING to the prosecution version at the time of the arrest and search made by Sri Ram Suresh Yadav, circle Officer, Railway Road, the applicant was having a polythene bag from where 1 k. g. and 100 grams charas was recovered. From that recovery of charas a sample of 100 grams charas was taken which was sealed on the spot. ( 5 ) IT is contended by the learned counsel for the applicant in the present case, there was no compliance of section 50 of the N. D. P. S. Act and there was no independent witness to support the prosecution story and the. applicant is not involved in any other case of N. D. P. S. Act and the mother of the applicant has sent telegram to the higher authorities on 21. 10. 2004 at 4. 45 p. m. mentioning therein that her son was arrested by the police on 21. 10. 2004 at about 8 a. m. there was an apprehension of his false implication in a criminal case. The applicant was illegally detained at the police station for a period of more than two days where he was falsely implicated in this case, on 23. 10. 2004 by planting alleged recovery of charas. ( 6 ) IT is opposed by the learned A. G. A. by submitting that there is strict compliance of section 50 of the N. D. P. S. Act because the applicant was apprised about his right of giving search before any magistrate or a Gazetted Officer as provided by section 50 of the N. D. P. S. Act. ( 6 ) IT is opposed by the learned A. G. A. by submitting that there is strict compliance of section 50 of the N. D. P. S. Act because the applicant was apprised about his right of giving search before any magistrate or a Gazetted Officer as provided by section 50 of the N. D. P. S. Act. Thereafter, the applicant stated that his search may be taken by any Gazetted officer then on a telephonic message circle Officer was called and in his presence search was taken and recovery of charas was made. The recovered charas was 1 kg. and 100 grams. It is above the commercial quantity and effort was made to collect the witnesses but nobody could be available. The applicant is a criminal having criminal history of five other cases. ( 7 ) IT is further submitted that so far as the telegram is concerned it has no value at this stage because such telegram are sent by the criminal in peshbandi. A huge quantity of charas was recovered from the possession of the applicant, which cannot be planted and there is no reason of false implication of the applicant, therefore the applicant is not entitled for ball. ( 8 ) IN the present case it is contended that the applicant was not arrested on 23. 10. 2004 as shown by the police because he was arrested on 21. 10. 2004. In respect of his arrest, one telegram was sent to the Chairman of Human Rights commission by his mother on 21. 10. 2004 at 4. 45 p. m. ; the time of sending the telegram is prior to the time of arrest of the applicant shown by the police which belies the alleged arrest and recovery. It is a plea of defence, it may be considered by the Trial Court when evidence in respect of this plea the evidence is adduced in the Court, prior that stage it is not proper to consider this plea because such telegram may be sent in peshbandi also for example a per son/who is committing the offence, knows it very well, that at any time he/she may be arrested. So to challenge such arrest he/she sends the fake telegram to higher authorities daily and in case of actual arrest any of such telegram may be used for disbelieving such arrest/recovery, false telegrams are usually sent. So to challenge such arrest he/she sends the fake telegram to higher authorities daily and in case of actual arrest any of such telegram may be used for disbelieving such arrest/recovery, false telegrams are usually sent. Therefore, such telegrams may not be considered to draw the conclusion in respect of the actual arrest of the accused, at pretrial stage. ( 9 ) CONSIDERING the facts and circumstances of the case and the submission made by the learned Counsel for the applicant and learned A. G. A. and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case the applicant is not entitled for bail at this stage. Accordingly, this bail application is rejected. Bail application rejected. .