Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2024 DIGILAW 471 (UTT)

Gurpal Singh @ Manga v. State of Uttarakhand

2024-07-09

RAVINDRA MAITHANI

body2024
JUDGMENT : (Ravindra Maithani, J.) : Applicant is in judicial custody in Case Crime No.356 of 2022, under Sections 8/22 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, Police Station- Rudrapur, District- Udham Singh Nagar. He has sought his release on bail. 2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 3. According to the FIR, on 03.06.2022, police intercepted a vehicle, a car, driven by the applicant and recovered narcotic substances in commercial quantity. The FIR records that the police party had left the police station at 5:30, in the evening. They intercepted the car of the applicant at 6:35 PM. The Circle Officer was called at the place of incident, who reached at 7:15 PM and after search at 8:00 PM, the applicant was arrested and information of his arrest was sent to his friend. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant would submit that the entire case is false; the applicant was apprehended much earlier by the police and at about 4:30 PM, information of his detention was given to his friend Bhola Singh. He has referred to the arrest memo, which does not include any time of arrest. It is Annexure No.1 to the short affidavit filed by the State along with an application dated 06.07.2024. He would also refer to the supplementary counter affidavit of the State, which was filed on 17.04.2023, in which it is categorically stated that police team had informed Bhola Singh about the arrest of the applicant. 5. Learned counsel for the applicant would also refer to the call details and further details given by State along with their short affidavit filed with an application on 06.07.2024, in which it is admitted that, in fact, one call was received from Police Constable Rajendra Kashyap to Bhola Singh at about 4:27 PM and another call at 8:11 PM. It is argued that it belies the prosecution case. 6. Learned State Counsel would submit that the information of arrest was given to Bhola Singh and he has signed the arrest memo. 7. It is a stage of bail. Much of the discussion is not expected of. Arguments are being appreciated with the caveat that any observation made in this order shall have no bearing at any subsequent stage of the trial, or in any other proceeding. 8. It is categorically the case of the applicant that he has been falsely implicated. 7. It is a stage of bail. Much of the discussion is not expected of. Arguments are being appreciated with the caveat that any observation made in this order shall have no bearing at any subsequent stage of the trial, or in any other proceeding. 8. It is categorically the case of the applicant that he has been falsely implicated. He was arrested by the police much earlier and the information of his detention was given at about 4:27 PM to his friend Bhola Singh. Initially, in one of the counter affidavits, State has admitted that the information was given to Bhola Singh telephonically, and, thereafter, he reached at the police station to sign the arrest memo. But, another short counter affidavit, which was filed along with an application on 06.07.2024, the things have been not been made much clear, but along with it, there is a report of Mohan Chandra Joshi, Sub Inspector, Police Station Kotwali-Rudrapur, District Udham Singh Nagar. In Para 2 of it, it is categorically stated that Bhola Singh did receive a call from Constable Rajendra Kashyap, who was in the Arresting Team, at 4:27 PM and another call at 8:11 PM. In the arrest memo, the time of arrest is not written. Has it not been written or has it been deleted? How Constable Rajendra Kashyap could inform Bhola Singh at 4:27 PM that the applicant is arrested when according to the prosecution, he was arrested at 8:11 PM? If Bhola Singh was telephonically informed, what was the need for calling him at the police station and getting his signature in the arrest memo? What was the need to take the statement of Bhola Singh post pendency of this bail application? 9. Having considered, this Court is of the view that it is a case fit for bail and the applicant deserves to be enlarged on bail. 10. The bail application is allowed. 11. 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.