Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2023 DIGILAW 342 (UTT)

Suraj Vaidya v. State of Uttarakhand

2023-05-25

VIVEK BHARTI SHARMA

body2023
JUDGMENT : In compliance of this Court order dated 24.05.2023, Mr. Sundaram Sharma, S.H.O., Police Station Transit Camp, District Udham Singh Nagar is present in person before this Court. 2. The supplementary counter affidavit filed on behalf of the Investigating Officer in the Court today, same is taken on record. 3. Applicant Suraj Vaidya, who is in judicial custody in Case Crime / F.I.R. No. 249 of 2022, under Section 8/22 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, Police Station Transit Camp, District Udham Singh Nagar has sought his release on bail. 4. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on file. 5. Learned counsel for the applicant would submit that the applicant is an innocent person; he has been falsely implicated in the instant crime and has no previous criminal history. He would further submit that that on the date of incident the applicant was picked up by the police at 2.00 P.M. and when enquired, the police had stated that they will release the applicant/accused after some interrogation and thereafter the police planted this false case against the applicant/accused and registered the F.I.R. No. 249 of 2022, in which the date and time of the occurrence is stated to be 28.06.2022 at 19.53. Counsel for the applicant drew attention of this Court to the alleged complainant (annexed as annexure no.3) lodged by the wife of the applicant/accused to the Senior Superintendent of Police, Udham Singh Nagar and the S.H.O., Transit Camp, District Udham Singh Nagar. However, he would submit that this complaint was given by hand and no receiving was taken or given by the police; that, the same complaint was sent by registered post on 01.10.2022, (the copy of the postal receipt is annexed at page no.24). The charge-sheet has been filed, therefore, there is no chance of tampering with the evidence by the applicant/accused. 6. Learned State counsel Mr. V.S. Rathore vehemently opposed the bail application and would submit that these allegations have been specifically denied in the counter affidavit filed by the State, and this is a fabricated story of the applicant/accused, and after thought; that, if at all any complaint was sent that is the matter of evidence, which could be decided at the time of trial. V.S. Rathore vehemently opposed the bail application and would submit that these allegations have been specifically denied in the counter affidavit filed by the State, and this is a fabricated story of the applicant/accused, and after thought; that, if at all any complaint was sent that is the matter of evidence, which could be decided at the time of trial. He would further submit that the quantity of the contraband recovered from the applicant is commercial quantity, and the offences against the applicant is punishable more than ten years of imprisonment with a fine of Rs.1 lakh, therefore, the applicant/accused is not entitled to bail. 7. In view of the facts stated above, but, without expressing any opinion on the final merits of the case, this Court is of the view that the applicant is not entitled for bail at this stage. The bail application deserves to be dismissed. 8. Accordingly, present bail application is hereby rejected. 9. As the Investigating Officer has been transferred from the Police Station Transit Camp, District Udham Singh Nagar, therefore, the S.H.O. of the said Police Station is directed to examine all important prosecution witnesses on each and every date of hearing before the trial court henceforth. 10. The S.H.O. was directed to appear before the Court for the reasons that being S.H.O. he did not comply with the directions for filing the supplementary affidavit despite the several Radiograms were sent by the office of learned Government Advocate. 11. On the query of this Court, he would submit that the radiograms sent by prosecution were endorsed to the Investigating Officer, who had filed the charge-sheet, to file the supplementary affidavit. However, he could not give any reason that if the Investigating Officer, who is not now posted in his Police Station, did not comply with the directions, then what corrective measures did he take for the compliance of directions of the Court. 12. Mr. V.S. Rathore, learned A.G.A. would submit that there is general direction of the S.S.P. Udham Singh Nagar by an Office Memorandum No. 34/2022 dated 05.11.2022, whereby it is directed that the counter affidavits would be filed in the Courts by the Investigating Officer, who had filed the charge-sheet. 13. From perusal of the said office memorandum, it is clear that this is not for the Investigating Officer who has been transferred from that police station. 13. From perusal of the said office memorandum, it is clear that this is not for the Investigating Officer who has been transferred from that police station. If this direction is even for the Investigating Officers, who have been transferred then, in the considered view of this Court, such directions are not helping in the dispensation of justice. It, rather, creates obstacles because once the Investigating Officer is transferred from that police station then there always strong chances of the communication gap and the counter affidavits are not filed despite several directions given by the Courts. Such kind of the directions might make it convenient for the police, but, however, that delays the dispensation of the justice. 14. The Senior Superintendent of Police, Udham Singh Nagar is directed to issue the appropriate directions that the Investigating Officer if present in the same police station then he may be directed to file the counter affidavit/reply in the Court, otherwise, S.H.O. being Incharge of the police station, would be duty bound to file the counter affidavit or to ensure the filing of the counter affidavits. 15. Copy of this order be sent to Senior Superintendent of Police, Udham Singh Nagar for compliance. The compliance report be filed before this Court. 16. Mr. Sundram Sharma, S.H.O. is hereby discharged.