Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2023 DIGILAW 534 (UTT)

Chhatrapal v. State of Uttarakhand

2023-09-14

RAVINDRA MAITHANI

body2023
JUDGMENT : Applicant Chhatrapal, is in judicial custody in FIR No. 174 of 2022, under Section 8/22/60 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, Police Station Kichha, District Udham Singh Nagar. He has sought his release on bail. 2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 3. This is second bail application. The first bail application was dismissed on 04.08.2023 in non prosecution. 4. According to the FIR, on 23.04.2022, narcotic substance in commercial quantity was allegedly recovered from the applicant. 5. Learned counsel for the applicant would submit that he has been falsely implicated. He was arrested without any reason. When he was taken to his residence, from his residence, the police personnel took some property documents. Certain CCTV footages have been filed alongwith the supplementary affidavit. 6. Learned counsel for the applicant would also submit that entire activities of the police were captured in the DVR which was taken from a Gurudwara. He would submit that now as per Forensic Science Laboratory (“FSL”) report, the relevant data was not available with the DVR. In addition to it, learned counsel would submit that the charge sheet in the case was submitted on 23.12.2022, charges were framed on 30.01.2023 and till date no witness has been examined. Copy of the order sheets has been filed. 7. Learned State counsel would submit that the FSL report does not confirm the version of the applicant and there is no footages pertaining to the requisite date i.e. 23.04.2022 from 4:00 PM to 6:00 PM in the DVR as reported by the FSL. As far as, the charge and order sheets are concerned, he would submit that order sheets have been filed by the applicant. 8. It is a case of recovery of commercial quantity of narcotic substance and in such cases Section 37 of the Act makes specific provisions. Bail in such cases may not be granted, unless the Court is satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for believing that the accused is not guilty of such offence and that he is not likely to commit any offence while on bail. But, denial of bail does not give unfettered liberty to the prosecution to keep a person in custody without conducting a trial. 9. The applicant was allegedly arrested on 24.04.2022. But, denial of bail does not give unfettered liberty to the prosecution to keep a person in custody without conducting a trial. 9. The applicant was allegedly arrested on 24.04.2022. It is being stated at Bar that the charge sheet was submitted in the court on 23.12.2022, the charges have been framed on 30.01.2023, but till now, no witness has been examined. It is about more than one year since then. 10. A man cannot be kept behind bars without any trial. The Court may perhaps understand the circumstances when the trial is slow. But, here is a case where the trial has not moved slightly ahead. No witnesses have been examined. This situation commands the Court to release the applicant on bail. 11. Having considered the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the view that it is a case fit for bail and the applicant deserves to be enlarged on bail. 12. The bail application is allowed. 13. Let the applicant be released on bail, on his executing a personal bond and furnishing two reliable sureties, each of the like amount, to the satisfaction of the court concerned. 14. This is another serious matter. It is the case of the applicant that he has been falsely implicated. The Police apprehended him from some place, took him at his residence and from there, the police took some property documents. 15. It is a case of the applicant that from a Gurudwara, he has taken the CCTV footages on his mobile phone. As to how the police reached his house and taken some property documents and falsely implicated him. But, the FSL report reveals that the data pertaining to the particular period i.e. 4:00 PM to 6:00 PM could not be retrieved. Does it mean that this data has been deleted by someone? If it is so, it is much serious offence. Who has taken this DVR into custody? How was it taken into custody. There is a report which reveals that from the Gurudwara, a certificate under Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 was to be taken, but it has yet not been received. Is it not a duty of the Investigating Officer? The petitioner has filed a CD alongwith the photographs to reveal that, in fact, the police visited his house. It is being denied by the Police. Is it not a duty of the Investigating Officer? The petitioner has filed a CD alongwith the photographs to reveal that, in fact, the police visited his house. It is being denied by the Police. It is a very serious issue. 16. Let the Senior Superintendent of Police, Udham Singh Nagar constitute a committee of Senior Officers to examine the CD which is filed by the applicant; send it for forensic examination separately. He shall also seek a report from FSL as to why the CCTV footages from 4:00 PM to 6:00 PM on 24.04.2022 could not be retrieved from the DVR, which the Investigating Officer has taken into custody? Has it been deleted? If it is so, when? Can it be detected from the DVR? The Court requests the Senior Superintendent of Police to submit a preliminary report for perusal of this Court. 17. List this matter on 17.10.2023. 18. Let a copy of this order alongwith other documents be sent to the Senior Superintendent of Police, Udham Singh Nagar. Applicant shall also file one more copy of the CD within next three days, that shall be forwarded to 2 Senior Superintendent of Police, Udham Singh Nagar.