Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2005 DIGILAW 2026 (ALL)

DHIRENDRA v. DHIRENDRA

2005-10-11

RAVINDRA SINGH

body2005
RAVINDRA SINGH, J. Heard Sri S. P. S. Raghav, learned Counsel for the applicant and the learned A. G. A. 2. The applicant has applied for bail in Case Crime No. 35 of 2005 under Sections 18/22 of N. D. P. S. Act P. S. Loni District Ghaziabad. 3. From the perusal of the record, it reveals that in the present case Mr. Haider Raza Zaidi, S. H. O. , P. S. Loni, District Ghaziabad lodged a F. I. R. on 11-1-2005 at 8. 15 p. m. against the applicant and co-accused Raman Singh and Yogendra Kaushik. 4. The prosecution story in grief is that on 11-1-2005, the first informant alongwith some police pesonnel were on petrol duty. Then he got the information that 3 miscreants riding on scooter and motor cycle were coming from Delhi side and they were having the Heroin. Relying on above information, the first informant and others came on the road side and they were waiting for the arrival of those miscreants. After expiry of half an hour, 3 miscreants riding on one motor cycle and two scooters came there who were identified by the Mukhbir and they were intercepted after using necessary force at about 5 p. m. , they disclosed their names and stated that they were having the Heroin. The option was placed before them to give the search before any Gazetted Officer or Magistrate but they stated that they were having full faith and are relying upon the first informant and it was left open for the first informant to take the the search in any manner. Then a message was given to S. D. M. and Circle Officer-III, Ghaziabad on R. T. Set but the S. D. M. could not be contacted. The Circle Officer-III, Sri Dinesh Yadav came at the place of occurrence at 5. 30 p. m. The miscreants were interrogated by him and on his direction and in his presence the search was taken by the first informant then from the possession of the applicant, half Kg. Heroin and one Mobile set were recovered and from the possession of the co-accused Yogendra Pal and co-accused Raman Singh also half Kg. Heroin each was recovered. 5. It is contended by the Counsel for the applicant that there is no compliance of Section 50 of N. D. P. S. Act. Heroin and one Mobile set were recovered and from the possession of the co-accused Yogendra Pal and co-accused Raman Singh also half Kg. Heroin each was recovered. 5. It is contended by the Counsel for the applicant that there is no compliance of Section 50 of N. D. P. S. Act. The applicant was falsely implicated in the present case and the recovery was planted. He was not arrested as alleged by the prosecution. 6. It is opposed by the learned A. G. A. by submitting that there is compliance of Section 50 of the N. D. P. S. Act because option was placed before the applicant for giving search before any Magistrate or Gazetted Officer. Thereafter, the search was taken in the presence of the Circle Officer-III, Ghaziabad who is also a Gazetted Officer. It is contended that the quantity of the recovered Heroin is half Kg. which is above the commercial quantity. It is a huge quantity, as such, such quantity may not be planted and there is no evidence to show that the applicant was arrested in some other manner and the recovery was planted. 7. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the contentions made by the learned Counsel for the applicant, learned A. G. A. and considering the fact that in the present case, option for giving search was placed before the applicant to give the search before the Gazetted Officer or the Magistrate and the search was made in presence of the Gazetted Officer and from the possession of the applicant, half Kg. Heroin was recovered, so the applicant is not entitled for bail. Accordingly, the prayer for bail is refused. 8. It is further contended by the learned Counsel for the applicant that the applicant is ailing in the jail and is condition is serious. In support of this contention, the applicant had filed many documents alongwith the report of the C. M. O. showing the ailment of the applicant. From the perusal of these documents, it appears that the applicant had got the fracture of the ribs etc. and the gallbladder was also removed to be in operation. It shows that the applicant requires a proper treatment which is not available in the jail, therefore, he may be released for short term bail for the period of 3 months from the date of release. 9. and the gallbladder was also removed to be in operation. It shows that the applicant requires a proper treatment which is not available in the jail, therefore, he may be released for short term bail for the period of 3 months from the date of release. 9. Let the applicant Dhirendra involved in Case Crime No. 35 of 2005 under Section 18/22 of N. D. P. S. Act, Police Station Loni, District Ghaziabad be released on short term bail for the period of three months from the date of his release from jail on his furnishing a personal bond and two heavy sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Court concerned. Accordingly, this bail application is disposed of. Application disposed of. .